91 Comments
User's avatar
joyce berman's avatar

On the first day of my statistics class in college, the professor said that you can use statistics to prove or unprove just about anything you want. I've never forgotten that.

Expand full comment
Terry Anderson's avatar

So the HVE is at least 25%?

Expand full comment
Rob Z's avatar

At a certain point, one is forced to accept these people are not dumb. They are not misguided. These are professionals who know how to design a study, not a freshman high school student.

I'm forced to conclude they know exactly what they are doing and don't care how many people they kill for the sake of their careers and paycheck.

Expand full comment
Ollie's avatar

Murder. Accomplices to murder.

Expand full comment
Ed Kilbane's avatar

The unvaccinated group most likely included the vast majority of France’s homeless and drug addicted population. How was that neutralized in the calculation?

Expand full comment
NAPman's avatar

Has Steve commented on this one? https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa2514268

Expand full comment
Swabbie Robbie's avatar

As Mark Twain said: There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Expand full comment
Datastorm556's avatar

Statistics don't really lie. Liars exploit statistics to tell lies.

Expand full comment
RA's avatar

1) Put together a study of as many of these plainly statistically flawed studies as can be found. Point out patterns and practices that lead to bogus favorable results that seemingly support this field of inoculations and other practices that on a macro scale highly correlate with disasters like autism, cancer outbreaks, etc. Point out the medical dangers in all this, and the investor and medical fraud that is facilitated by these activities.

2) Use the "study of bogus studies" to predicate legislation banning any mandatory inoculations, or mandatory anything, based on the kind of crap that's being generated by the medical-pharma establishment.

Expand full comment
_Jim's avatar

Anyone else remember the "Journal of Irreproducible Results"*?

We are in that territory ...

https://archive.org/details/journalofirrepro0000unse_q1z0/mode/2up

* There was (is?) also the "Annals of Improbable Research" (AIR).

Expand full comment
Crixcyon's avatar

Any of these putrid journals can claim anything because there is no more truth to be had, if there ever was. Peer reviewed means that someone was able to pay enough to get as bunch of hokey dimwits to sign off on the lies.

Expand full comment
Anthony Salerni's avatar

Doctors generally don’t read original articles. They are however, inclined to quote the likes of NBC Health, CNN and MedScape.

Case in point, during the Plandemic the weekly barrage of emails from the New Hampshire Medical Society all promoting either the Vax or a new drug released under EUA most often referenced CNN’s analysis of an original articles. The Society didn’t even have the professionalism to provide I links to the original articles. One had to descend into the slime of the CNN website in order to retrieve these.

As an aside I’d like to point out that in medical training years ago we were taught that we were the peer reviewers. Once a month and in my case for 9 years we the residents were tasked with reviewing journals concerning our discipline then critique the quality and conclusions of each study in front of the group including the professors.

It’s quite evident to me that this doesn’t happen anymore.

Expand full comment
Cheryl Schroeder's avatar

All of education has taken a downward spiral in the years since WW2. Would be worth a study of why. Television? Tell a vision?

Expand full comment
Birdingmom's avatar

Always love your humor in presenting this information, Steve!

Expand full comment
_Jim's avatar

Reason (the libertarian rag) falls for the hype: "French Study on mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Finds a Drop in Severe COVID—and No Increase in Deaths" as written by one Ronald Bailey (who I'm sure is no statistician nor a diagnostician.) He doesn't completely escape (in his naïveté) in their comments section either, although the True Believers ™ (in mRNA injections) do show up to parrot the mantra too.

https://reason.com/2025/12/05/french-study-on-mrna-covid-19-vaccines-finds-a-drop-in-severe-covid-and-no-increase-in-deaths/

Expand full comment
James Kenney, PhD's avatar

Perhaps "Reason" ought to change its name to "Duped"? If your a subscriber [I am not], maybe ask Mr. Bailey if the miraculous COVID vaccine really saved lives [reduced total mortality by 25%!], then why did the USA and most other countries saw INCREASED total mortality in 2021 compared to 2020? Or why working Americans [18-64y] with employer paid for life insurance from one of the largest life insurance companies saw a 40% increase in claims due to deaths in 2021 compared to 2020!! Steve is right that the JAMA article is clearly "fake science" IMO.

Expand full comment
_Jim's avatar

Some (one) commenter on their site referred to the mag as "Teen Reason" which also seems apropos ...

Expand full comment
James Kenney, PhD's avatar

Hum!? I am pretty sure "Teen Reason" is an oxymoron, which would make it a far better name for a publication that cannot quite grasp reality. Also Mr. Bailey seems to be no smarter than an ox. Has it occurred to that shrinking minority of folks still getting those "boosters" that the last thing we should have seen in year two of a pandemic would be a big jump in total mortality. Even more odd for a proclaimed "safe and effective vaccine" would have been a marked increase in "deaths with COVID" in addition to more deaths from all other causes combined. And yet that is what happened in 2021. How does that reality jibe with this lame JAMA article's claims about the mRNA shots preventing 74% of COVID deaths and 25% of all deaths. That does not compute in a brain capable of reason or logic does it?

Expand full comment
David Weiner's avatar

Someone should start a medical journal using Alter AI as its peer reviewer.

I am sure it would publish much higher quality research than the supposedly prestigious journals we have today.

Expand full comment
Max Azoury's avatar

I took 500 boosters and I have been alive for over 2000 years now

Expand full comment
Max Azoury's avatar

AlterAI got confused about NCACM and also doesn't know what KCOR is and is just confabulating plausible information. Best to give small definitions to it so that it doesn't do that.

I'm about 2 years behind the major labs

Expand full comment
David Pare's avatar

Yeah if it reduces ACM, then the more shots you take, the longer you'll live. All the vax-pushers should be taking one of these shots every month.

Speaking of which - I think we should demand to see all the vax-pushers vax cards. Are they up-to-date with the latest booster or are they a bunch of closet anti-vaxxers?

Expand full comment
Jer's avatar

I am of the opinion that JAMA is not long for this world--and RIGHTFULLY SO! This is MORE proof of the pudding. Most of the 'medical journals' do NOT deserve to be in existence due to the OUTRIGHT LIES they have perpetuated that have CAUSED DEATH AND TORTURE WORLDWIDE! They WILL be HELD TO ACCOUNT!

Expand full comment
David Weiner's avatar

Hopefully the AMA dies with it!

Expand full comment
Swabbie Robbie's avatar

They probably need more boosters

Expand full comment