Best estimate 2 vax deaths per 1,000 vaccinated. Deaths from vax >> deaths from COVID. Nobody is able to refute Joel's analysis showing at best the vaccine did nothing (not safe or effective).
Interestingly enough, the true death numbers for C19 as estimated here are remarkably close to the number China claims actually occurred in the US. Not sure how they came to their conclusions.
Depending on the state you live in the medical boards will terminate the licenses of doctors that cure covid patients on an outpatient basis with cheap safe generic medicines. If your doctor is not allowed to treat you- this is what could happen. Your oxygen saturation will decrease to the point that you need to go to the hospital. Once you are in the hospital you get the CDC Fauci protocol. This means remdesivir and ventilation. At that point you have a 90% chance of dying. The hospital in turn gets massive amounts of cash from the government for ventilating you. They also get a cash bonus if the death certificate says you died of covid.
The UK government has signed an agreement with Moderna to build a mRNA 'vaccine' production facility to produce 250 Million doses per year and the UK Government will buy them for the next 10 years. Canada and Australia each has signed a similar agreement for 100 Million doses annually. With a UK Population of 68 Million, Canada 40 Million and Australia 26 Million that means about 3 to 4 mRNA shots per person per year. I guess they really are planning to kill us all
Their stated goal was, and is, depopulation. Gates said it repeatedly. The jab is depopulating.
It was obvious that "covid" wasn't a "killer pandemic". It was obvious that the measures (masking, distancing, lockdowns) were silly at best, and sociopathic at worst.
The "pandemic" was the staging for the jab, which depopulates. Start reading your region's obits and see for yourself. Babies, children, teens, young adults, adults, middle-aged working people, retirees under 75. Don't even look at the over 70s.
Agreed, except depopulation is only one aspect of the crime of the century, let alone history.
The wealthy elites are out for money and control, warping everything good in the world. They want to digitize everything which will bring computerized control.
The depopulation is not just the jab either as there are numerous toxins in the environment which have turned people peculiar either transgender or suicidal for example, so that birth rates plummet and more deaths ensue.
As you say it was obvious "covid" wasn't a "killer pandemic". I realized early on that it was the 'seasonal 'flu made worse by lockdowns etc. then added to by poisons tests and vaccines etc.
However, lock-downs did have some benefits (I would NOT have chosen them that said), pros as well as cons and some realised this. If you are interested I wrote this.
Transgender issue is not what you say above. Massive funding from biotech orgs flowed down to every possible genre of institution in order to flip the next generation's understanding of 'human'. Yes, environmental toxins have been messing with human biology for many decades, but the active promotion of transgenderism has been run from the axis of social engineering.
They clearly decided that in order to make the world they wanted, they needed a new type of human. Socially, physically, and psychologically pliable and controllable in every possible way. And that's what media/education/medicine/psychology/justice are all doing (have been funded to do) in tandem to children and young people with Gender Ideology (GI).
Not trying to "win" an argument with you. I ended up in the GI weeds by accident, and ended up reading and digging. It's a cult. Actually, the very definition. Young people falling into transgenderism have been captured into the gender cult; and AGP fetish-driven men are simply there for the ride, piggybacking on a trend (which serves the planners, since they applaud anything that further destabilizes society and creates more chaos).
They started so many social fires that they have us running from one to the next while they collapse society in order to rebuild in their deviant image. Ugh.
I'm not a Christian (I'm celebrating Hanukah, and also Winter Solstice), but I wish you Merry Christmas! Reconnection to nature and to our intelligent source is how we win this. I have faith, and implore others to find theirs! Whatever God is to people, they must unplug from the matrix and reconnect to source.
I was aware of the WHO's repeated move to try and push changes to the IHR, but had not seen James Roguski's good post, so thank you very much.
I would agree that the "...active promotion of transgenderism has been run from the axis of social engineering." I should perhaps have said both as the chemical side is the Nazis and the social engineering the Marxist/communist. These all came out from Germany originally. Germany is in fact one of 3 major players in the Covid 19 game, although it is the Nazis etc. again.
The neuro-toxic effects of drugs etc. serious mess with people's brains leaving them vulnerable to the indoctrination.
I would agree with using the word "cult" for it is all part and parcel of the 'culture' wars. And as you say, Ugh!!!
The intelligent source is the mind of God within which we move and have our being. As a follower of Jesus Christ for over 40 years, I now understand what I might have wished to understand when I was younger but it took until the age of 60 years in 2020 to arrive at where I had wanted to be.
Following Christ has never been anything to do with religion in the Roman Catholic or similar sense. Indeed, as 'vaccination' is an anagram of 'icon Vatican' the RC Church is seriously problematic shall we say on that score alone.
As the truth of a matter lies in the words themselves, the truth lies in the Word, God Himself who is language and all words belong to Him. As to the full nature of God, well that is a journey in itself.
And I am not interested in winning arguments as such so much as reasoning together to seek out the truth.
Overall it is love that people need, both God and His children, all of us. So enjoy your time of rest and celebration.
We're mostly in agreement. Though I was sad to see the no-holds-barred Jew-bashing and Jew-hate with regards to Walensky on your post. (I'm not a fan of hers or of any evil, no matter their ethnic background.) Your website; your choice. I'm pro-free speech.
But if you're a genuine follower of genuine Christ consciousness, then hate and vilification should be outside your purview. A genuine spirit of Christ consciousness helps the world move beyond hate – and into love – so that we might all evolve to a "higher" consciousness. So within; so without...on a planet of polarity, we can't hate others without hating ourselves, and can't love humanity until we love ourselves.
In that vein, I wish you love. I work daily in my tiny ways to help the planet heal. We all have a lot of work ahead of us.
As regards Jew bashing I do make it quite plain there are Jews that say they are Jews but are not but are of the synagogue of Satan.
They are not true Jews, but interlopers, not actually of the tribe of Israel as such, although my understanding is they married into Israel including the tribe of Judah.
If you examine those who promote the evil vaccines etc. you will find they claim to be Jewish but their actions expose their true nature. They control much of the USA today, the government, corporate media, banks etc., completely disproportionate to their numbers. This should be obvious to even the most casual research.
These so-called Jews are not the only ones of course, there are plenty of others who are children of the Devil as well.
You do not follow Christ and therefore do not understand what He actually said, nor the fact that God hates the actions who would harm His children. Rochelle Walensky cares not for the truth otherwise she would not say and do the things she does promoting evil vaccines etc. She has become vile and despicable and therefore judged accordingly.
Satan was a liar and a murderer from the beginning and if you understood what he really did to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden you would think as I do.
We are not evolving into a higher consciousness as we exist within the mind of God and are seeking the truth and love within His mind.
But you are are correct, we cannot love humanity until we truly love ourselves. To do that we must also love God as the two great commandments, in short love God and love our neighbour as we love ourselves.
You don't know what I know or what I follow. Your Jew-hate post is hateful. As such, your claim to be a follower of Christ is a lie.
You talk a lot, but you don't know or follow Christ consciousness, because Christ consciousness is about love and unity. If you were a follower of spiritual truth, you'd know that everything in the world is a reflection of ourselves. Judge others; judge yourself. Everything.
Don't expect the world to change if you're unable to change yourself. Knock yourself out with another twisted, exhaustive reply. I'm finished. Good luck.
Not everyone is as brave and dedicated as you are Steve, for the cause of freedom and individual choice. Your paragraph regarding our "right to life," is the most powerful I have yet to hear. Even IF the vaccines might be "save others," which would be so incredibly hard to prove, we are NOT required to risk our lives for others without doing so voluntary. This is why it is so very tragic the number of our military that had to walk away or are now permanently injured (or dead). They have risked their lives twice over and many lost that spin of the roulette wheel.
What is our pathway back to our Constitutional foundation?
Whatever it might be, that road is surely to be paved with bravery and cowardice, wins and losses; relief and suffering; and freedom and tyranny. My hope and prayer, along with the tasks I will undertake in this current war, is that freedom is the ultimate winner.
The whole government propaganda line is criminally moronic. The push to inject children and young adults with lethal life destroying shots for a virus that poses virtually no threat to them on the lie that it would save Granny's life is the most maliciously evil stupid ridiculous lie ever conceived. Meanwhile they made sure lifesaving drugs that could help Granny like Ivermectin were unavailable. It does not get any worse than this.
Many of us know by now that the main purpose of the Covid Hoax that our shadow government practiced for years with the support of Psychopaths like Bill Gates was to Kill, Maime, and Sterilize a good percentage of the human population to achieve their world government ambitions.
This thus is a Fight between the Globalists and We the People. Either these genocidal maniacs are stopped and brought to justice, or the world turns into a real-life version of Mad Max.
The US military members all take an oath to protect America from enemies both foreign and domestic. Would the entire spike protein delivery system qualify?
This genetic MRNA drug impairs one's immune system forever and so it "will" at the very least shorten the lifespans of billions but if new data for the next 4 months of excess deaths shows a decline then I'm willing to be wrong. If however the numbers stay rising then the great kill off of 3.7 billion so is unstoppable.
The mrna shots working exactly as planned so far but at least in the US only 8% of people are taking the boosters. This is good news. But Biden is going to push mandates for the boosters as well. He has to follow orders from his masters.
You ask why isn't anyone bringing out the problems with the vaccines. Money and Power. Money from the federal government to push the multi-million doses they bought being funneled into corrupt media (that includes radio, too). (Why would I as a MM CEO turn down advertising money?) Power to control the "dirty masses" and make us slaves. That is your answer in a nutshell.
“Why won’t anyone even try to replicate my survey? Why aren’t any fact checkers calling me to validate the entries? Why won’t Pfizer or Moderna prove me wrong?”
I see what you’re doing there. ;)
I wish Steve Kirsch’s substack was required reading for all proponents of the COVID vaccines.
“There is something seriously wrong with a society who makes the risk:benefit tradeoff for you and requires you to risk your life to save others, even if there is solid evidence of that. Here, there was NEVER a clear societal mortality benefit published anywhere that I am aware of, which makes the mandates even worse. And no authority was willing to be challenged on their mandates.”
The day China announced the Wuhan ‘novel’ virus, was the day I had stress. Why? Because I knew then the goal was Fauci’s obsession with vaccine mandates. I knew this was coming and it was a threat to my bodily autonomy. Yes, there is something seriously wrong with this. And the cases that were filed against the emergency powers and that failed were just the beginning. Each one is in violation of “Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health 1990” where in a 5-4 ruling, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the majority affirming "the right of a competent individual to refuse medical treatment.”
Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 425-426 (1934)
They had no right to declare a pandemic over this. • Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency.
COVID was fabricated by data manipulation, media gaslighting, and the release of some pathogens in certain locations like New York City to create a fear Psyop for a specific purpose to obtain universal vaccine mandates.
Right now the unvaccinated(any vaccine) account for a paltry .26% of the U.S. population(Vaxxter ref. below). This study represents the control group they desperately need to eliminate, because if you look at the study you see the source of most chronic diseases today, including the comorbitities people died “with COVID” from and how they were caused by them!
I prefer it if EVERY Doctor or Nurse or Assistant that "vaccinated" innocent victims, each giver of poison, each of them HAVE THEIR RIGHT HAND REMOVED BY GUILLOTINE. That's fair.
I'm an elderly person with a weak immune system. The 2019-2020 flu season was my worst ever. I had four different viruses, including Influenza B and Influenza A -- and after all that, I had COVID, right when the real CDC data showed COVID peaking in the U.S. (data gathered through the CDC's Influenza-Like Illness Surveillance system, which uses accurate testing, not the screwed-up PCR testing).
(Incidentally, when I went to my doctor with my third virus, on January 21, 2020, she told me, "This is a really bad flu season. Lots of people are dying." This was after the peak of Influenza B, and before the peak of Influenza A.)
The symptoms and the sequence of symptoms are dramatically different for coronaviruses and influenza viruses. The flu-like symptoms that occur (for only some people) as part of COVID-19 (original Wuhan and early variants -- not Omicron, which is a very different thing) start on the 8th day of symptoms.
In my opinion, Fauci and colleagues deliberately conflated the symptoms of COVID-19 with flu symptoms so that people wouldn't seek early treatment (like with HCQ or IVM) during the first week of symptoms. If you wait until you have the flu-like symptoms of COVID-19, an entirely different treatment is needed and you are much more likely to end up in the hospital generating profits for hospitals and the maker of Remdesivir . . . and contributing to the scary statistics used to frighten people into taking the dangerous C19 vaccines.
BTW, my information about the early symptoms, and the sequence of symptoms, of COVID-19 came from a doctor in China who had been treating COVID-19 there. He wrote the description of early symptoms in response to relatives who asked him "How will we know we're getting COVID-19?"
I was taking about 5000 IU/day that winter, but increased to 10,000 IU for a couple of weeks, on doc's recommendation, when I came down with virus #3. Was back at 5000 IU when COVID came around about 7 weeks later. I don't know what my D3 level was then (don't know now, either -- should probably get tested. . .)
I actually did very well with COVID because I knew I was high risk and had researched what alternative docs were doing for treatment. On day 1 of symptoms, I started taking 6 g/day of Vit. C and 6 capsules/day of elderberry. That prevented the virus from getting any worse (all I had was a mild sore throat, a few swollen glands in neck, and slight discomfort in lungs). On day 4, I added an obscure anti-viral I'd read about. By day 8, I was completely free of symptoms and stayed that way. Was never sick enough to change my daily activities.
My daughter, who lived with me and got sick exactly the same time, tried my anti-viral but it made her very nauseated so she stopped after the first dose. (We hadn't yet heard about the importance of aggressive early treatment.) She went on to have an uncomfortable but not dangerous illness, took about 3 weeks to feel 95% better and had a few intermittent symptoms for a few weeks after that. She had loss of smell and taste, all sorts of lung symptoms, shortness of breath, etc., etc. However, an alternative doc already had her on a supplement program for other reasons and in retrospect, we could see it protected her from "the worst." She was taking substantial doses of Vitamins A, C, D, and E; selenium; zinc; quercetin; and inositol (which acts as a surfactant in the lungs and relieves shortness of breath).
I remember reading about Vit. D (probably in April 2020) and telling my husband, "If public health agencies wanted to do something HELPFUL, they could hand out Vit. D for free."
In the section ”All cause death mortality follow up” Kirsch finally acknowledges that someone (presumably me) did actually give a scientific critique (a “peer-review”) of his and Smalley’s analysis. But he doesn’t address the specific criticisms I made of their methods *at all*, he merely says my critique “wasn’t persuasive”. Persuasive of what exactly ? Of there being flaws in their argument or of their conclusion being false ? Kirsch doesn’t specify, but note that there is a crucial difference between these two things and asking for a peer-review means asking for a scientific critique of an argument, not of a conclusion (the latter may or may not be valid independent of any particular argument for it).
So instead I watched Smalley’s follow-up video, hoping that there my criticisms would be addressed. No such luck. He begins by repeating the “normalization” of the cumulative vaccination rate curve that he made in the previous video. But he provides no further justification for this step, merely refers back to the first video. Hence, he simply does not address *at all* my primary critique, namely that this step is not satisfactorily motivated.
Most of this new video is taken up with “simulations”. This is where things start to get weird. Because all that he is doing here is illustrating a basic result in probability theory called the Glivenko-Cantelli theorem:
Obviously I don’t dispute that the Glivenko-Cantelli theorem is true – it’s a theorem ! But this has *absolutely nothing* to do with addressing the criticisms I made of their *specific* analysis of a *specific* dataset. I cannot stress this point highly enough: everything you see in this part of the video is absolutely irrelevant to a peer-review of their article.
The video finishes with an apparent acknowledgement of the weaknesses of the particular dataset which was presented in the first video. Smalley suggests rectifying this by collecting more data, preferably lots of datasets from mutually independent sources. I agree entirely, if one is interested in determining the truth or falsity of their conclusion. But hold on a minute: that wasn’t the job of a peer-reviewer, like I said above that person’s job is to evaluate the *argument* actually presented for the conclusion, not the conclusion itself.
Most worryingly, Smalley suggests one should “shut up” if one is unwilling to do this work of collecting more data oneself. Who is he addressing here ? If he is addressing me, or any other peer-reviewer, then this is a deeply unethical statement. It is asserting a right to ignore a peer-review of an *argument* if the peer-reviewer does not convince the author that his *conclusion* is false. Sorry, no, that is not how it works, period !
The deeper point here is that it is impossible, even in principle, to conduct scientific discussion if one does not clearly and consistently distinguish between claims and arguments for those claims. Precisely because it is concerned with the latter, the scientific method is a *systematic* way of sorting out which claims are true and which are false. So by not making the distinction clear, one is effectively negating the scientific method.
I might make another post later where I return to this crucial issue of “normalization” of the vaccination rate curve and suggest how this work of Kirsch and Smalley could be moved forward in a constructive manner.
My apologies, I thought it might be possible to search comments by name. And apologies for the delay, I'm visiting family abroad and am a bit handicapped regarding internet access. I've reproduced my original comment in full below. As regards setting up my own substack, I've considered it. Not sure right now if I could post there regularly enough to justify it,. But maybe.
-----
I greatly appreciate your work Steve, but I am far from convinced by this dataset, as presented in Joel Smalley's video. Here are several problems which spring to mind, given time I may think of more:
1. The assumption that in the absence of Covid deaths, percentages of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated deaths should align with percentages of each category in the population needs a detailed justification. Smalley just vaguely refers to inaccuracy of census data and to UK survey data indicating that official stats overstate % of population vaccinated. Since this initial "normalisation" of the raw data is absolutely key to his entire analysis, such vague hand-waving is totally unsatisfactory. For example, one could argue that, if vaccines reduce Covid illness then they will also reduce non-Covid mortality over time by leaving those who are vaccinated in a generally more healthy state.
2. Another possible explanation for why the percentage of unvaccinated deaths in the raw data exceeds the percentage of non-vaccinees in the population (after Aug 21) is that your readers, and hence also the people they know well, are more likely to be unvaccinated than the average in the population, hence more likely to know people who died who were unvaccinated. This is just an example of how your dataset might not be a representative sample of deaths in the general population. There are other indications of such bias, for example Covid deaths are signficantly overrepresented in your raw data. Let's take 2021, where you have a full year of data. From Smalley's video (0:26ff), the total number of deaths per month is (approx., I'm estimating from the figure)
26, 20, 34, 26, 28, 29, 35, 40, 61, 49, 57, 75
Total for 2021: 480.
For Covid deaths (18:00ff) the numbers are
8,5,4,9,9,1,8,12,15,9,12,19
Total for 2021: 111 So 111/480 = 23,1% of reported deaths in the raw data are Covid deaths.
Now, according to Worldometers, the total number of US Covid deaths were as follows:
there were approx. 3,458,697 deaths in the US in 2021.
Thus 476,348/3,458,697 = 13,8% of all deaths were Covid deaths. So Covid deaths are overrepresented by a factor of nearly 2 in your sample. We don't have a full year of data for 2022, but it seems to be a similar picture there. So your dataset simply doesn't seem to be close to a representative sample of all deaths. It's perhaps not surprising: you asked respondents to submit the death the details of which they recalled best. And given the high profile of Covid, people are more likely to recall the details of deaths that involved Covid.
3. Smalley explains the spike in unvaccinated deaths in late summer 2021 as due to a kind of "survivor bias". But survivor bias could also explain the slow increase in the % of vaccinated deaths after March 2022, that it over time in general. Imagine for simplicity that there are only 2 kinds of people, healthy and unhealthy. The latter are more likely to die in any given time interval. Suppose now you have a vaccine with some positive efficiency, which is taken by the same percantage of healthy as unhealthy people. As time goes on, the percentage of deaths that are vaccinees will increase, not because the vaccine loses efficacy but simply because, amongst the unhealthy, the unvaccinated are dying off faster.
4. I don't think Smalley explains where he got his curve for the percentage of the population vaccinated over time. But his curve doesn't seem to align with, for example, the curve from Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations There, for example, it says that as of March 31, 2022 the % who received at least one dose was 77.04%, not the 84% in Smalley's video. (And the % fully vaccinated on that date was only 66.15%).
Summary: Of the points above, #1 is most fundamental. If that "normalisation" could be properly justified, then maybe the dataset is then worth analysing further. Indeed, the overrepresentation of Covid deaths in the raw data should a priori strengthen a "not safe and effective" conclusion, assuming that the vaccines may prevent some Covid deaths but at the expense of deaths from adverse reactions. On the other hand, one would expect the % of deaths amongst vaccinees to be a priori higher than in the population at large, because vaccination rates are higher amongst the elderly and unhealthy. So this would require an extra normalisation. Your data may also be signficiantly non-representative in many other ways I haven't thought of. In short, there are so many problems I am not sure there is much valuable information to be extracted here.
About your own substack- you can simply use it as a convenience too put stuff like this there, that way you could just put in a link when referencing comments you had made previously.
Interestingly enough, the true death numbers for C19 as estimated here are remarkably close to the number China claims actually occurred in the US. Not sure how they came to their conclusions.
bingo.
And, understand about the sarcasm; I often run into that.
You're stuff is excellent (looking at the BigPic w/all vaccines). i've read a bunch of your posts. Keep it up? Well, you know what I mean.
Depending on the state you live in the medical boards will terminate the licenses of doctors that cure covid patients on an outpatient basis with cheap safe generic medicines. If your doctor is not allowed to treat you- this is what could happen. Your oxygen saturation will decrease to the point that you need to go to the hospital. Once you are in the hospital you get the CDC Fauci protocol. This means remdesivir and ventilation. At that point you have a 90% chance of dying. The hospital in turn gets massive amounts of cash from the government for ventilating you. They also get a cash bonus if the death certificate says you died of covid.
It's a genius if not diabolical scheme.
In the interest of humanity, we need to fight our way out this with all of our might.
The UK government has signed an agreement with Moderna to build a mRNA 'vaccine' production facility to produce 250 Million doses per year and the UK Government will buy them for the next 10 years. Canada and Australia each has signed a similar agreement for 100 Million doses annually. With a UK Population of 68 Million, Canada 40 Million and Australia 26 Million that means about 3 to 4 mRNA shots per person per year. I guess they really are planning to kill us all
Clearly, stockings are not the only thing that should be "hung with care" this Christmas.
Their stated goal was, and is, depopulation. Gates said it repeatedly. The jab is depopulating.
It was obvious that "covid" wasn't a "killer pandemic". It was obvious that the measures (masking, distancing, lockdowns) were silly at best, and sociopathic at worst.
The "pandemic" was the staging for the jab, which depopulates. Start reading your region's obits and see for yourself. Babies, children, teens, young adults, adults, middle-aged working people, retirees under 75. Don't even look at the over 70s.
Agreed, except depopulation is only one aspect of the crime of the century, let alone history.
The wealthy elites are out for money and control, warping everything good in the world. They want to digitize everything which will bring computerized control.
The depopulation is not just the jab either as there are numerous toxins in the environment which have turned people peculiar either transgender or suicidal for example, so that birth rates plummet and more deaths ensue.
As you say it was obvious "covid" wasn't a "killer pandemic". I realized early on that it was the 'seasonal 'flu made worse by lockdowns etc. then added to by poisons tests and vaccines etc.
However, lock-downs did have some benefits (I would NOT have chosen them that said), pros as well as cons and some realised this. If you are interested I wrote this.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2021/09/05/pros-and-cons-of-lockdowns/
In any event I hope you and yours have a good Christmas.
Agree. The big picture IS a mind-blowing power grab by pro-biotech elites, of the planet, out of the hands of free humans. Dystopia.
Did you see the proposed wording of the new Internat Health Regulations?
https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/the-proposed-amendments-to-the-international?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=email
Transgender issue is not what you say above. Massive funding from biotech orgs flowed down to every possible genre of institution in order to flip the next generation's understanding of 'human'. Yes, environmental toxins have been messing with human biology for many decades, but the active promotion of transgenderism has been run from the axis of social engineering.
They clearly decided that in order to make the world they wanted, they needed a new type of human. Socially, physically, and psychologically pliable and controllable in every possible way. And that's what media/education/medicine/psychology/justice are all doing (have been funded to do) in tandem to children and young people with Gender Ideology (GI).
Not trying to "win" an argument with you. I ended up in the GI weeds by accident, and ended up reading and digging. It's a cult. Actually, the very definition. Young people falling into transgenderism have been captured into the gender cult; and AGP fetish-driven men are simply there for the ride, piggybacking on a trend (which serves the planners, since they applaud anything that further destabilizes society and creates more chaos).
They started so many social fires that they have us running from one to the next while they collapse society in order to rebuild in their deviant image. Ugh.
I'm not a Christian (I'm celebrating Hanukah, and also Winter Solstice), but I wish you Merry Christmas! Reconnection to nature and to our intelligent source is how we win this. I have faith, and implore others to find theirs! Whatever God is to people, they must unplug from the matrix and reconnect to source.
Many thanks for your detailed reply.
I was aware of the WHO's repeated move to try and push changes to the IHR, but had not seen James Roguski's good post, so thank you very much.
I would agree that the "...active promotion of transgenderism has been run from the axis of social engineering." I should perhaps have said both as the chemical side is the Nazis and the social engineering the Marxist/communist. These all came out from Germany originally. Germany is in fact one of 3 major players in the Covid 19 game, although it is the Nazis etc. again.
The neuro-toxic effects of drugs etc. serious mess with people's brains leaving them vulnerable to the indoctrination.
I would agree with using the word "cult" for it is all part and parcel of the 'culture' wars. And as you say, Ugh!!!
The intelligent source is the mind of God within which we move and have our being. As a follower of Jesus Christ for over 40 years, I now understand what I might have wished to understand when I was younger but it took until the age of 60 years in 2020 to arrive at where I had wanted to be.
Following Christ has never been anything to do with religion in the Roman Catholic or similar sense. Indeed, as 'vaccination' is an anagram of 'icon Vatican' the RC Church is seriously problematic shall we say on that score alone.
As the truth of a matter lies in the words themselves, the truth lies in the Word, God Himself who is language and all words belong to Him. As to the full nature of God, well that is a journey in itself.
And I am not interested in winning arguments as such so much as reasoning together to seek out the truth.
Overall it is love that people need, both God and His children, all of us. So enjoy your time of rest and celebration.
We're mostly in agreement. Though I was sad to see the no-holds-barred Jew-bashing and Jew-hate with regards to Walensky on your post. (I'm not a fan of hers or of any evil, no matter their ethnic background.) Your website; your choice. I'm pro-free speech.
But if you're a genuine follower of genuine Christ consciousness, then hate and vilification should be outside your purview. A genuine spirit of Christ consciousness helps the world move beyond hate – and into love – so that we might all evolve to a "higher" consciousness. So within; so without...on a planet of polarity, we can't hate others without hating ourselves, and can't love humanity until we love ourselves.
In that vein, I wish you love. I work daily in my tiny ways to help the planet heal. We all have a lot of work ahead of us.
As regards Jew bashing I do make it quite plain there are Jews that say they are Jews but are not but are of the synagogue of Satan.
They are not true Jews, but interlopers, not actually of the tribe of Israel as such, although my understanding is they married into Israel including the tribe of Judah.
If you examine those who promote the evil vaccines etc. you will find they claim to be Jewish but their actions expose their true nature. They control much of the USA today, the government, corporate media, banks etc., completely disproportionate to their numbers. This should be obvious to even the most casual research.
These so-called Jews are not the only ones of course, there are plenty of others who are children of the Devil as well.
You do not follow Christ and therefore do not understand what He actually said, nor the fact that God hates the actions who would harm His children. Rochelle Walensky cares not for the truth otherwise she would not say and do the things she does promoting evil vaccines etc. She has become vile and despicable and therefore judged accordingly.
Satan was a liar and a murderer from the beginning and if you understood what he really did to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden you would think as I do.
We are not evolving into a higher consciousness as we exist within the mind of God and are seeking the truth and love within His mind.
But you are are correct, we cannot love humanity until we truly love ourselves. To do that we must also love God as the two great commandments, in short love God and love our neighbour as we love ourselves.
You don't know what I know or what I follow. Your Jew-hate post is hateful. As such, your claim to be a follower of Christ is a lie.
You talk a lot, but you don't know or follow Christ consciousness, because Christ consciousness is about love and unity. If you were a follower of spiritual truth, you'd know that everything in the world is a reflection of ourselves. Judge others; judge yourself. Everything.
Don't expect the world to change if you're unable to change yourself. Knock yourself out with another twisted, exhaustive reply. I'm finished. Good luck.
The last few years if I happen to meet a pregnant woman, I ask if it is a boy, a girl, or something in between.
HAHAHA LOL I love that!
Not everyone is as brave and dedicated as you are Steve, for the cause of freedom and individual choice. Your paragraph regarding our "right to life," is the most powerful I have yet to hear. Even IF the vaccines might be "save others," which would be so incredibly hard to prove, we are NOT required to risk our lives for others without doing so voluntary. This is why it is so very tragic the number of our military that had to walk away or are now permanently injured (or dead). They have risked their lives twice over and many lost that spin of the roulette wheel.
What is our pathway back to our Constitutional foundation?
Whatever it might be, that road is surely to be paved with bravery and cowardice, wins and losses; relief and suffering; and freedom and tyranny. My hope and prayer, along with the tasks I will undertake in this current war, is that freedom is the ultimate winner.
The whole government propaganda line is criminally moronic. The push to inject children and young adults with lethal life destroying shots for a virus that poses virtually no threat to them on the lie that it would save Granny's life is the most maliciously evil stupid ridiculous lie ever conceived. Meanwhile they made sure lifesaving drugs that could help Granny like Ivermectin were unavailable. It does not get any worse than this.
Many of us know by now that the main purpose of the Covid Hoax that our shadow government practiced for years with the support of Psychopaths like Bill Gates was to Kill, Maime, and Sterilize a good percentage of the human population to achieve their world government ambitions.
This thus is a Fight between the Globalists and We the People. Either these genocidal maniacs are stopped and brought to justice, or the world turns into a real-life version of Mad Max.
Merry Christmas.
He is already fighting with you in the heavenly realms. We are well into the Revelation narrative.
And still our corrupt Gov pushes this poison. Follow the $$$
The US military members all take an oath to protect America from enemies both foreign and domestic. Would the entire spike protein delivery system qualify?
'delivery industry'.
This genetic MRNA drug impairs one's immune system forever and so it "will" at the very least shorten the lifespans of billions but if new data for the next 4 months of excess deaths shows a decline then I'm willing to be wrong. If however the numbers stay rising then the great kill off of 3.7 billion so is unstoppable.
The mrna shots working exactly as planned so far but at least in the US only 8% of people are taking the boosters. This is good news. But Biden is going to push mandates for the boosters as well. He has to follow orders from his masters.
You ask why isn't anyone bringing out the problems with the vaccines. Money and Power. Money from the federal government to push the multi-million doses they bought being funneled into corrupt media (that includes radio, too). (Why would I as a MM CEO turn down advertising money?) Power to control the "dirty masses" and make us slaves. That is your answer in a nutshell.
I have a nutshell myself if you haven't seen.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2022/11/14/vaccination-industry-in-a-nutshell/
Thanks Misaki. I'm totally aware they are all PARTNERS in CRIME!
We've got to keep putting these frightening facts in from of people and hope the take notice for their own wellbeing!
Cheers!
Mick from Hooe (UK) Unjabbed because I joined the dots.
“Why won’t anyone even try to replicate my survey? Why aren’t any fact checkers calling me to validate the entries? Why won’t Pfizer or Moderna prove me wrong?”
I see what you’re doing there. ;)
I wish Steve Kirsch’s substack was required reading for all proponents of the COVID vaccines.
“There is something seriously wrong with a society who makes the risk:benefit tradeoff for you and requires you to risk your life to save others, even if there is solid evidence of that. Here, there was NEVER a clear societal mortality benefit published anywhere that I am aware of, which makes the mandates even worse. And no authority was willing to be challenged on their mandates.”
The day China announced the Wuhan ‘novel’ virus, was the day I had stress. Why? Because I knew then the goal was Fauci’s obsession with vaccine mandates. I knew this was coming and it was a threat to my bodily autonomy. Yes, there is something seriously wrong with this. And the cases that were filed against the emergency powers and that failed were just the beginning. Each one is in violation of “Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health 1990” where in a 5-4 ruling, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the majority affirming "the right of a competent individual to refuse medical treatment.”
Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 425-426 (1934)
They had no right to declare a pandemic over this. • Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency.
COVID was fabricated by data manipulation, media gaslighting, and the release of some pathogens in certain locations like New York City to create a fear Psyop for a specific purpose to obtain universal vaccine mandates.
Right now the unvaccinated(any vaccine) account for a paltry .26% of the U.S. population(Vaxxter ref. below). This study represents the control group they desperately need to eliminate, because if you look at the study you see the source of most chronic diseases today, including the comorbitities people died “with COVID” from and how they were caused by them!
https://vaxxter.com/new-survey-of-vaccine-free-group-exposes-long-term-impact-of-vaccination-policies-on-public-health-by-greg-glaser-and-pat-oconnell/
Hopefully the covid vaccine is required for all the proponents of the covid vaccine.
I prefer it if EVERY Doctor or Nurse or Assistant that "vaccinated" innocent victims, each giver of poison, each of them HAVE THEIR RIGHT HAND REMOVED BY GUILLOTINE. That's fair.
Since they are all about prevention, this would be a form of hypocrisy prevention.
There's no CV19; look at the flu deaths for 2017-2018 VS 2019-2020
I'm an elderly person with a weak immune system. The 2019-2020 flu season was my worst ever. I had four different viruses, including Influenza B and Influenza A -- and after all that, I had COVID, right when the real CDC data showed COVID peaking in the U.S. (data gathered through the CDC's Influenza-Like Illness Surveillance system, which uses accurate testing, not the screwed-up PCR testing).
(Incidentally, when I went to my doctor with my third virus, on January 21, 2020, she told me, "This is a really bad flu season. Lots of people are dying." This was after the peak of Influenza B, and before the peak of Influenza A.)
The symptoms and the sequence of symptoms are dramatically different for coronaviruses and influenza viruses. The flu-like symptoms that occur (for only some people) as part of COVID-19 (original Wuhan and early variants -- not Omicron, which is a very different thing) start on the 8th day of symptoms.
In my opinion, Fauci and colleagues deliberately conflated the symptoms of COVID-19 with flu symptoms so that people wouldn't seek early treatment (like with HCQ or IVM) during the first week of symptoms. If you wait until you have the flu-like symptoms of COVID-19, an entirely different treatment is needed and you are much more likely to end up in the hospital generating profits for hospitals and the maker of Remdesivir . . . and contributing to the scary statistics used to frighten people into taking the dangerous C19 vaccines.
BTW, my information about the early symptoms, and the sequence of symptoms, of COVID-19 came from a doctor in China who had been treating COVID-19 there. He wrote the description of early symptoms in response to relatives who asked him "How will we know we're getting COVID-19?"
What is your blood serum D3 level?
Makes a huge difference.
https://naturodoc.com/articles/vitamin-d-in-a-new-light
I was taking about 5000 IU/day that winter, but increased to 10,000 IU for a couple of weeks, on doc's recommendation, when I came down with virus #3. Was back at 5000 IU when COVID came around about 7 weeks later. I don't know what my D3 level was then (don't know now, either -- should probably get tested. . .)
I actually did very well with COVID because I knew I was high risk and had researched what alternative docs were doing for treatment. On day 1 of symptoms, I started taking 6 g/day of Vit. C and 6 capsules/day of elderberry. That prevented the virus from getting any worse (all I had was a mild sore throat, a few swollen glands in neck, and slight discomfort in lungs). On day 4, I added an obscure anti-viral I'd read about. By day 8, I was completely free of symptoms and stayed that way. Was never sick enough to change my daily activities.
My daughter, who lived with me and got sick exactly the same time, tried my anti-viral but it made her very nauseated so she stopped after the first dose. (We hadn't yet heard about the importance of aggressive early treatment.) She went on to have an uncomfortable but not dangerous illness, took about 3 weeks to feel 95% better and had a few intermittent symptoms for a few weeks after that. She had loss of smell and taste, all sorts of lung symptoms, shortness of breath, etc., etc. However, an alternative doc already had her on a supplement program for other reasons and in retrospect, we could see it protected her from "the worst." She was taking substantial doses of Vitamins A, C, D, and E; selenium; zinc; quercetin; and inositol (which acts as a surfactant in the lungs and relieves shortness of breath).
I remember reading about Vit. D (probably in April 2020) and telling my husband, "If public health agencies wanted to do something HELPFUL, they could hand out Vit. D for free."
In the section ”All cause death mortality follow up” Kirsch finally acknowledges that someone (presumably me) did actually give a scientific critique (a “peer-review”) of his and Smalley’s analysis. But he doesn’t address the specific criticisms I made of their methods *at all*, he merely says my critique “wasn’t persuasive”. Persuasive of what exactly ? Of there being flaws in their argument or of their conclusion being false ? Kirsch doesn’t specify, but note that there is a crucial difference between these two things and asking for a peer-review means asking for a scientific critique of an argument, not of a conclusion (the latter may or may not be valid independent of any particular argument for it).
So instead I watched Smalley’s follow-up video, hoping that there my criticisms would be addressed. No such luck. He begins by repeating the “normalization” of the cumulative vaccination rate curve that he made in the previous video. But he provides no further justification for this step, merely refers back to the first video. Hence, he simply does not address *at all* my primary critique, namely that this step is not satisfactorily motivated.
Most of this new video is taken up with “simulations”. This is where things start to get weird. Because all that he is doing here is illustrating a basic result in probability theory called the Glivenko-Cantelli theorem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glivenko%E2%80%93Cantelli_theorem
Obviously I don’t dispute that the Glivenko-Cantelli theorem is true – it’s a theorem ! But this has *absolutely nothing* to do with addressing the criticisms I made of their *specific* analysis of a *specific* dataset. I cannot stress this point highly enough: everything you see in this part of the video is absolutely irrelevant to a peer-review of their article.
The video finishes with an apparent acknowledgement of the weaknesses of the particular dataset which was presented in the first video. Smalley suggests rectifying this by collecting more data, preferably lots of datasets from mutually independent sources. I agree entirely, if one is interested in determining the truth or falsity of their conclusion. But hold on a minute: that wasn’t the job of a peer-reviewer, like I said above that person’s job is to evaluate the *argument* actually presented for the conclusion, not the conclusion itself.
Most worryingly, Smalley suggests one should “shut up” if one is unwilling to do this work of collecting more data oneself. Who is he addressing here ? If he is addressing me, or any other peer-reviewer, then this is a deeply unethical statement. It is asserting a right to ignore a peer-review of an *argument* if the peer-reviewer does not convince the author that his *conclusion* is false. Sorry, no, that is not how it works, period !
The deeper point here is that it is impossible, even in principle, to conduct scientific discussion if one does not clearly and consistently distinguish between claims and arguments for those claims. Precisely because it is concerned with the latter, the scientific method is a *systematic* way of sorting out which claims are true and which are false. So by not making the distinction clear, one is effectively negating the scientific method.
I might make another post later where I return to this crucial issue of “normalization” of the vaccination rate curve and suggest how this work of Kirsch and Smalley could be moved forward in a constructive manner.
Peter, we are better off with people like you doing what you do, "thanks" is the only thing I can think of to say, so thanks again.
Where is your critique. Would be interested to read
It's amongst the comments to SK's initial substack on the topic, "Are you a data scientist ..."
That is not helpful. There are a million comments on all of Steve kirsch's posts. You might consider putting up your own substack.
My apologies, I thought it might be possible to search comments by name. And apologies for the delay, I'm visiting family abroad and am a bit handicapped regarding internet access. I've reproduced my original comment in full below. As regards setting up my own substack, I've considered it. Not sure right now if I could post there regularly enough to justify it,. But maybe.
-----
I greatly appreciate your work Steve, but I am far from convinced by this dataset, as presented in Joel Smalley's video. Here are several problems which spring to mind, given time I may think of more:
1. The assumption that in the absence of Covid deaths, percentages of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated deaths should align with percentages of each category in the population needs a detailed justification. Smalley just vaguely refers to inaccuracy of census data and to UK survey data indicating that official stats overstate % of population vaccinated. Since this initial "normalisation" of the raw data is absolutely key to his entire analysis, such vague hand-waving is totally unsatisfactory. For example, one could argue that, if vaccines reduce Covid illness then they will also reduce non-Covid mortality over time by leaving those who are vaccinated in a generally more healthy state.
2. Another possible explanation for why the percentage of unvaccinated deaths in the raw data exceeds the percentage of non-vaccinees in the population (after Aug 21) is that your readers, and hence also the people they know well, are more likely to be unvaccinated than the average in the population, hence more likely to know people who died who were unvaccinated. This is just an example of how your dataset might not be a representative sample of deaths in the general population. There are other indications of such bias, for example Covid deaths are signficantly overrepresented in your raw data. Let's take 2021, where you have a full year of data. From Smalley's video (0:26ff), the total number of deaths per month is (approx., I'm estimating from the figure)
26, 20, 34, 26, 28, 29, 35, 40, 61, 49, 57, 75
Total for 2021: 480.
For Covid deaths (18:00ff) the numbers are
8,5,4,9,9,1,8,12,15,9,12,19
Total for 2021: 111 So 111/480 = 23,1% of reported deaths in the raw data are Covid deaths.
Now, according to Worldometers, the total number of US Covid deaths were as follows:
Dec 31, 2020: 376,411
Dec 31, 2021: 852,759
=> 476,348 Covid deaths in 2021.
According to CDC data
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7117e1.htm
there were approx. 3,458,697 deaths in the US in 2021.
Thus 476,348/3,458,697 = 13,8% of all deaths were Covid deaths. So Covid deaths are overrepresented by a factor of nearly 2 in your sample. We don't have a full year of data for 2022, but it seems to be a similar picture there. So your dataset simply doesn't seem to be close to a representative sample of all deaths. It's perhaps not surprising: you asked respondents to submit the death the details of which they recalled best. And given the high profile of Covid, people are more likely to recall the details of deaths that involved Covid.
3. Smalley explains the spike in unvaccinated deaths in late summer 2021 as due to a kind of "survivor bias". But survivor bias could also explain the slow increase in the % of vaccinated deaths after March 2022, that it over time in general. Imagine for simplicity that there are only 2 kinds of people, healthy and unhealthy. The latter are more likely to die in any given time interval. Suppose now you have a vaccine with some positive efficiency, which is taken by the same percantage of healthy as unhealthy people. As time goes on, the percentage of deaths that are vaccinees will increase, not because the vaccine loses efficacy but simply because, amongst the unhealthy, the unvaccinated are dying off faster.
4. I don't think Smalley explains where he got his curve for the percentage of the population vaccinated over time. But his curve doesn't seem to align with, for example, the curve from Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations There, for example, it says that as of March 31, 2022 the % who received at least one dose was 77.04%, not the 84% in Smalley's video. (And the % fully vaccinated on that date was only 66.15%).
Summary: Of the points above, #1 is most fundamental. If that "normalisation" could be properly justified, then maybe the dataset is then worth analysing further. Indeed, the overrepresentation of Covid deaths in the raw data should a priori strengthen a "not safe and effective" conclusion, assuming that the vaccines may prevent some Covid deaths but at the expense of deaths from adverse reactions. On the other hand, one would expect the % of deaths amongst vaccinees to be a priori higher than in the population at large, because vaccination rates are higher amongst the elderly and unhealthy. So this would require an extra normalisation. Your data may also be signficiantly non-representative in many other ways I haven't thought of. In short, there are so many problems I am not sure there is much valuable information to be extracted here.
Thank you.
About your own substack- you can simply use it as a convenience too put stuff like this there, that way you could just put in a link when referencing comments you had made previously.
Interesting and informative. Thank you!
Surprise, surprise, surprise...Shazam!