Consider a recent large UK COVID vaccine study published in Nature Communications. UCSF Professor Vinay Prasad and UPenn Professor Jeffrey Morris had two different takes on this paper.
When were births anything to do with marriage? The 2 don’t necessarily go hand in hand. There are millions of illegitimate people in the world, as opposed the hundreds of bastards. 😉
Steve or Steve's team, I've been a paid subscriber for years and I never get a Steve newsletter in my in-box. I used to. I have to come directly to the home page to get Steve's articles.
No, the formatting seems to be fine on my end. There are several paid subscribers who I don't get their articles in my in-box. Several things happening on Substack make me think something has changed at Substack - at least for the dissident writers.
"The importance of falsification endpoints in observational studies of vaccination to prevent severe disease: A critique of a harm–benefit analysis of BNT162b2 vaccination of 5- to 11-year-olds"
I've never asked the questions below about 'Boosters' and why Pfizer, etc, avoid 'LIABILITY' for vax injuries and vax related DEATHS. These questions have been in the back of my mind since the virus was first modified for release in order to create a lucrative 'vax market' and to terminate much of the world's population by using Gain of Function lab experiments (By Fauci and friends). Translated, 'GoF' means modifying viruses and illnesses to make them more lethal, and to simultaneously pretend to create a USELESS and DEADLY injection for massive profits.
I realise the deceit and manipulation undertaken by Pfizer, Moderna, etc, in persuading the authorities to grant the dubious and suspicious licence = Experimental Use Authorisation (Licence). Vax profits go a long way in persuading others in authority to accept and promote a lie that pre-existing meds like Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, etc, were not suitable for human consumption. But, now as the dust settled, the FDA have U-turned now and are again recommending IVM & HCQ. What a bizarre world we live in?
I believe they used dodgy trials and false data, which the FDA suspiciously accepted as proof of SAFETY, for which we suspect the FDA (personnel) were suitably rewarded for their cooperation.
Unlike the Swine Flu debacle back in the 1970's, the DEATHS and INJURIES Caused by Pfizer & Moderna, etc, were allowed to continue into the thousands. if not millions. In 1976, the US Government terminated a similar Emergency trial after just 50 +/- US military died as a result of dodgy injections. That's FIFTY deceased US citizens DEAD, so the trial was aborted. How can this mass-murder by injection continue when we all know it's mass depopulation?
AND, the FDA still allow Pfizer, etc, to make vast fortunes with no consideration of responsibility for the DEATHS that continue to be recorded. 'ZERO LIABILITY' is yet another farce permitted by those sharing the proceeds!
Might I raise three issues which have left me suspicious since the BOOSTERS suddenly appeared?
1. Why don't Pfizer, etc, set aside 20% of their vast fortunes to compensate victims of their medicines?
2. We all know the Covid injection was allowed to be ,marketed due to corruption throughout the pharmaceutical industry. The 'EUA Licence' was permitted through dubious financial arrangements. But does anybody know if the mysteriously appearing 'BOOSTERS' are the same formula as the so-called 'vaccine'?
3. Did the 'Booster' obtain a separate LICENCE (EUA), or was it yet more 'slight of hand' by all concerned in it's introduction. Was it just presumed acceptable, or do 'BOOSTERS have their own separate Licence number?
Thanks to any that can allay my suspicions.
Unjabbed Mick (UK) I'll live longer without evil and corrupt medical interference.
Sir, can you analysis of data on fertility rate post jab? I wonder % of newlywed mothers giving birth 2 years after marriage. Something like that. Is the drop in baby birth due to less marriage, or less fertility? It is happening everywhere.
Great video by Prasad. I'm shocked its still up. Then again, Mrs YouTube died of cancer at age 56 (2.6:1000 odds of that one back in 2019) so maybe the rest of YouTube is doing a rethink.
Confidence in the vaxes continues to plunge, especially among the "far right" (so "far" - they've been "right"). Heh and to think I used to be a Democrat. I actually fell for "hope & change." But that was then...this is now...and I guess I'm "far right". We all wake up on different schedules.
I've noticed this before, but I just was trying to find a comment I made a few days ago, and if I go to one of your substack articles from your homepage, none of the comments are assessable or even show up, even if I'm signed in, and I can only access them by getting to the article through the email notification link. Why is that?
If you haven't already tried this, try clearing the cache in your browser and restarting. If that doesn't work go to https://substack.com/support and let the support robot take a look.
Well I guess that is the homepage, an accessing substance from there shows the replies, but I assumed clicking on Steve's icon would take me to his homepage, which it looks like it does, but it's not the full page I guess. Why would it do that? Have you tried that?
Searching Steve Kirsch on Substack I find two, one with round profile pic is his profile and the other is the Newsletter. https://imgur.com/WmVEGwm.jpg
Pfizer: 0.17-6.99% Short-term fatality rate after vaccination
Moderna: 1.04-4.07%
NewZealand: 2023Ocｔ.: Varies by batch: 4.5-21%
《No matter how much they calculate from untrue data, the truth will not come out!》
The paper uses the term “low incidence” excessively often, which shows the intention to label it as safe.
This is a paper to deceive amateurs (or incompetent doctors and politicians), just like those who advertise Relative Risk Reduction instead of Absolute Risk Reduction.
Regarding (B)
The definitions of h(t), H(t), and S(t) are at the end of the line.
The differential mortality rate at a certain time (t) is called the hazard function h(t). →Hazard functions are variables that depend on time.
Specifically, h(t) is the percentage or absolute number of deaths for each group divided into two groups measured on a daily basis.
The hazard function is a differentiated value that indicates "how quickly a particular event occurs."
The hazard ratio is "how much the sense of speed differs between the two groups" = h1(t)/h2(t)
If proportional hazards are maintained (h1(t)/h2(t) = Const) → the survival curves will never "intersect"
Even if the survival curves never "intersect", it does not mean that proportional hazards are maintained.
Generally speaking, proportional hazards do not exist.
The COX model allows you to find the hazard ratio without calculating the hazard function h1,2(t).
In other words, it makes a special assumption.
The assumption is called Proportional Hazard = (h1(t)/h2(t) = Const), which is known to be invalid in most cases.
The COX model makes assumptions that are impossible for anyone to understand.
The only times the COX model holds true are when it is known that the intervention is ineffective,
and in special cases where the hazard function is always proportional.
Specifically, this is the case when a healthy population of men and women is divided into two groups,
and only in very special cases where (h1(t)/h2(t) = Const) holds.
When viewed on a graph, H1(t) and H2(t) for both groups must slope parallel to the logarithmic axis against the time axis t.
That would never happen on Earth.
The conditions for the COX model to be valid are as follows:
1) S1(t) and S2(t) for the two groups are known in advance. ←This is not known in advance for BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, etc.
2) If the effect is not known in advance, there is no point in analyzing using the COX model.
←The ARR for BNT162b2 was 0.716%, meaning that there is almost no positive effect
If it is known in advance, conversely, there is no need to analyze.
3) The COX model is only meaningful when it is known in advance that there is no effect of the intervention = there is no intervention.
Specifically, it is limited to looking at the gender difference in infection deaths in a group of people who were all unvaccinated,
or looking at the gender difference between groups of people who received a certain number of vaccinations.
However, even in these cases, the condition (h1(t)/h2(t) = Const) will not be valid.
Hazard function Cumulative hazard function Survival function
As always , just follow the money. It is a practically fail safe method. I can guarantee you that Morris received money from the CDC or NIH and Prasad got the back of the hand.
Its old news Virginia. If you don't understand how the "treatments" killed people (apparently you have other reasons for the extremely low Africa mortality vs Western Nations?) you probably should do some research on that - or do research on this site directly since you are (surprisingly) trolling around this site with an unknown agenda. The Internet is locked down by your side now (the side that doesn't want to get caught and tried for genocide), so some of the research will be hidden now but the Africa data remains. And if you have no friends, relatives or aquaintences that died from the phony treatment protocols in 2020-2024, you are in a very slim minority. Or, possibly disingenous, but I will grant you that you could just be looking at things from another perspective with good intentions.
The paper asserts that risk of heart attacks and myocarditis go down with subsequent injections? And THIS is the kind of paper mainstream media/trusted initiative will run with to convince the public there is no danger to these shots. Just like the paper purporting that HCQ was dangerous and causes heart attacks. How evil.
We live in a world caught between opposing versions of "truth" most people can't discern. Few of us have the intellectual and analytical capacity of Steve Kirsch or Vinny Prasad. It boils down to trusting your sources. I don't trust any entity trying to coax that stuff into my veins
All the more reason to never take another vaccine…ever.
75% of research dollars in the US (via the NIH) are funded by big pharma. Can we assume that the UK is no different?
When were births anything to do with marriage? The 2 don’t necessarily go hand in hand. There are millions of illegitimate people in the world, as opposed the hundreds of bastards. 😉
Considering what we discuss here I do not see how anyone could believe Morris.
Steve or Steve's team, I've been a paid subscriber for years and I never get a Steve newsletter in my in-box. I used to. I have to come directly to the home page to get Steve's articles.
When I come to the page the formatting is messed up, even after clearing history but not for any other substack. Same for you?
No, the formatting seems to be fine on my end. There are several paid subscribers who I don't get their articles in my in-box. Several things happening on Substack make me think something has changed at Substack - at least for the dissident writers.
I especially appreciated Prasad's comments on falsification endpoints, which I hadn't heard of before. He elaborated in a paper earlier this year:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11022251/
"The importance of falsification endpoints in observational studies of vaccination to prevent severe disease: A critique of a harm–benefit analysis of BNT162b2 vaccination of 5- to 11-year-olds"
I've never asked the questions below about 'Boosters' and why Pfizer, etc, avoid 'LIABILITY' for vax injuries and vax related DEATHS. These questions have been in the back of my mind since the virus was first modified for release in order to create a lucrative 'vax market' and to terminate much of the world's population by using Gain of Function lab experiments (By Fauci and friends). Translated, 'GoF' means modifying viruses and illnesses to make them more lethal, and to simultaneously pretend to create a USELESS and DEADLY injection for massive profits.
I realise the deceit and manipulation undertaken by Pfizer, Moderna, etc, in persuading the authorities to grant the dubious and suspicious licence = Experimental Use Authorisation (Licence). Vax profits go a long way in persuading others in authority to accept and promote a lie that pre-existing meds like Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, etc, were not suitable for human consumption. But, now as the dust settled, the FDA have U-turned now and are again recommending IVM & HCQ. What a bizarre world we live in?
I believe they used dodgy trials and false data, which the FDA suspiciously accepted as proof of SAFETY, for which we suspect the FDA (personnel) were suitably rewarded for their cooperation.
Unlike the Swine Flu debacle back in the 1970's, the DEATHS and INJURIES Caused by Pfizer & Moderna, etc, were allowed to continue into the thousands. if not millions. In 1976, the US Government terminated a similar Emergency trial after just 50 +/- US military died as a result of dodgy injections. That's FIFTY deceased US citizens DEAD, so the trial was aborted. How can this mass-murder by injection continue when we all know it's mass depopulation?
AND, the FDA still allow Pfizer, etc, to make vast fortunes with no consideration of responsibility for the DEATHS that continue to be recorded. 'ZERO LIABILITY' is yet another farce permitted by those sharing the proceeds!
Might I raise three issues which have left me suspicious since the BOOSTERS suddenly appeared?
1. Why don't Pfizer, etc, set aside 20% of their vast fortunes to compensate victims of their medicines?
2. We all know the Covid injection was allowed to be ,marketed due to corruption throughout the pharmaceutical industry. The 'EUA Licence' was permitted through dubious financial arrangements. But does anybody know if the mysteriously appearing 'BOOSTERS' are the same formula as the so-called 'vaccine'?
3. Did the 'Booster' obtain a separate LICENCE (EUA), or was it yet more 'slight of hand' by all concerned in it's introduction. Was it just presumed acceptable, or do 'BOOSTERS have their own separate Licence number?
Thanks to any that can allay my suspicions.
Unjabbed Mick (UK) I'll live longer without evil and corrupt medical interference.
Sir, can you analysis of data on fertility rate post jab? I wonder % of newlywed mothers giving birth 2 years after marriage. Something like that. Is the drop in baby birth due to less marriage, or less fertility? It is happening everywhere.
Great video by Prasad. I'm shocked its still up. Then again, Mrs YouTube died of cancer at age 56 (2.6:1000 odds of that one back in 2019) so maybe the rest of YouTube is doing a rethink.
Confidence in the vaxes continues to plunge, especially among the "far right" (so "far" - they've been "right"). Heh and to think I used to be a Democrat. I actually fell for "hope & change." But that was then...this is now...and I guess I'm "far right". We all wake up on different schedules.
https://www.newsweek.com/vaccine-attitudes-data-survey-more-dangerous-illnesses-1936920
One less censor in the World is a good thing.
Because you were right so far, makes you "so far right", sounds about right.
The chances of any legit researcher being able to access such data would be less than a snowball's chance in Hell.
I've noticed this before, but I just was trying to find a comment I made a few days ago, and if I go to one of your substack articles from your homepage, none of the comments are assessable or even show up, even if I'm signed in, and I can only access them by getting to the article through the email notification link. Why is that?
If you haven't already tried this, try clearing the cache in your browser and restarting. If that doesn't work go to https://substack.com/support and let the support robot take a look.
I realized later what the problem is. The web address with the comments linked from the newsletter begins:
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/
While the ones that don't have the comments, from his homepage begin:
https://substack.com/@stevekirsch/p
It seems they have different access settings.
The home page SHOULD be https://kirschsubstack.com.
Well I guess that is the homepage, an accessing substance from there shows the replies, but I assumed clicking on Steve's icon would take me to his homepage, which it looks like it does, but it's not the full page I guess. Why would it do that? Have you tried that?
Searching Steve Kirsch on Substack I find two, one with round profile pic is his profile and the other is the Newsletter. https://imgur.com/WmVEGwm.jpg
In conclusion, this paper (A) uses problematic data. (B) The model has problems estimating the vaccine effectiveness.
Regarding (A), both the NHS and ONS distort the data itself by treating those within 20 days of vaccination as unvaccinated.
The lot (batch) difference in the fatality rate is not included.
https://knollfrank.github.io/HowBadIsMyBatch/batchCodeTable.html
Pfizer: 0.17-6.99% Short-term fatality rate after vaccination
Moderna: 1.04-4.07%
NewZealand: 2023Ocｔ.: Varies by batch: 4.5-21%
《No matter how much they calculate from untrue data, the truth will not come out!》
The paper uses the term “low incidence” excessively often, which shows the intention to label it as safe.
This is a paper to deceive amateurs (or incompetent doctors and politicians), just like those who advertise Relative Risk Reduction instead of Absolute Risk Reduction.
Regarding (B)
The definitions of h(t), H(t), and S(t) are at the end of the line.
The differential mortality rate at a certain time (t) is called the hazard function h(t). →Hazard functions are variables that depend on time.
Specifically, h(t) is the percentage or absolute number of deaths for each group divided into two groups measured on a daily basis.
The hazard function is a differentiated value that indicates "how quickly a particular event occurs."
The hazard ratio is "how much the sense of speed differs between the two groups" = h1(t)/h2(t)
If proportional hazards are maintained (h1(t)/h2(t) = Const) → the survival curves will never "intersect"
Even if the survival curves never "intersect", it does not mean that proportional hazards are maintained.
Generally speaking, proportional hazards do not exist.
The COX model allows you to find the hazard ratio without calculating the hazard function h1,2(t).
In other words, it makes a special assumption.
The assumption is called Proportional Hazard = (h1(t)/h2(t) = Const), which is known to be invalid in most cases.
The COX model makes assumptions that are impossible for anyone to understand.
The only times the COX model holds true are when it is known that the intervention is ineffective,
and in special cases where the hazard function is always proportional.
Specifically, this is the case when a healthy population of men and women is divided into two groups,
and only in very special cases where (h1(t)/h2(t) = Const) holds.
When viewed on a graph, H1(t) and H2(t) for both groups must slope parallel to the logarithmic axis against the time axis t.
That would never happen on Earth.
The conditions for the COX model to be valid are as follows:
1) S1(t) and S2(t) for the two groups are known in advance. ←This is not known in advance for BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, etc.
2) If the effect is not known in advance, there is no point in analyzing using the COX model.
←The ARR for BNT162b2 was 0.716%, meaning that there is almost no positive effect
If it is known in advance, conversely, there is no need to analyze.
3) The COX model is only meaningful when it is known in advance that there is no effect of the intervention = there is no intervention.
Specifically, it is limited to looking at the gender difference in infection deaths in a group of people who were all unvaccinated,
or looking at the gender difference between groups of people who received a certain number of vaccinations.
However, even in these cases, the condition (h1(t)/h2(t) = Const) will not be valid.
Hazard function Cumulative hazard function Survival function
h₁,₂(t) → [Integral] → H₁,₂(t) → exp{-H₁,₂(t)} → S₁,₂(t)
h₁,₂(t) ← [Differential] ←H₁,₂(t) ← -logS₁,₂(t) ← S₁,₂(t)
S(t) is proportional in both groups and h(t) in the intervention group < h(t) in the left-alone group = effective
S(t) is proportional in both groups and h(t) in the intervention group > h(t) in the left-alone group = adverse effect
The number of deaths due to vaccination varies greatly by lot, and the distribution over time is inconsistent.
There is no objective indicator established as a methodology to confirm proportional hazards.
If stratified using Cox, it becomes arbitrary.
As always , just follow the money. It is a practically fail safe method. I can guarantee you that Morris received money from the CDC or NIH and Prasad got the back of the hand.
Its old news Virginia. If you don't understand how the "treatments" killed people (apparently you have other reasons for the extremely low Africa mortality vs Western Nations?) you probably should do some research on that - or do research on this site directly since you are (surprisingly) trolling around this site with an unknown agenda. The Internet is locked down by your side now (the side that doesn't want to get caught and tried for genocide), so some of the research will be hidden now but the Africa data remains. And if you have no friends, relatives or aquaintences that died from the phony treatment protocols in 2020-2024, you are in a very slim minority. Or, possibly disingenous, but I will grant you that you could just be looking at things from another perspective with good intentions.
the point of propaganda isn't truth, its repetition until the listener gives in.
And unfortunately there are people who cave at the first blast. Too bad for them.
The paper asserts that risk of heart attacks and myocarditis go down with subsequent injections? And THIS is the kind of paper mainstream media/trusted initiative will run with to convince the public there is no danger to these shots. Just like the paper purporting that HCQ was dangerous and causes heart attacks. How evil.
We live in a world caught between opposing versions of "truth" most people can't discern. Few of us have the intellectual and analytical capacity of Steve Kirsch or Vinny Prasad. It boils down to trusting your sources. I don't trust any entity trying to coax that stuff into my veins