The Czech Republic record level data shows the COVID vaccines were neither safe nor effective. Is that why I'm the only guy willing to talk about what it says publicly?
First, like so many would be analysts, you apparently over-relied on and failed to heed the accompanied warnings of any and all AI systems to your own detriment. With my graduate assistants, we ran the Czech data with your "system" and provoked the following systemic errors:
1. "Given a fixed cohort of humans at t=0 unless they are very old, they will die at a nearly straight line constant slope over a 1 year period."
This claim is incorrect. Mortality rates do not follow a linear pattern over time. While it's true that as people age, their mortality risk increases, the rate of change in mortality rates varies depending on factors such as comorbidities and lifestyle choices. Moreover, mortality patterns are influenced by many external factors like seasonality and environmental conditions.
2. "The annual slope of deaths/day depends on their physical age, not their comorbidities."
This claim is also incorrect. Comorbidities significantly impact the mortality risk of individuals. People with chronic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, or cardiovascular disease are at a higher risk of death compared to those without these conditions even if they have similar ages.
3. "So any cohort, regardless of mix of ages, comorbidities, etc. if we care only about death, there are only two key numbers that we can use to characterize ANY group of people: deaths per week (impacted by effective fraility index of the group) and annual change per year in deaths per week."
This claim oversimplifies the complexity of mortality patterns. While it's true that deaths per week is a useful metric for characterizing mortality rates, the claim that comorbidities only affect the "effective frailty index" neglects other significant factors such as lifestyle choices, access to healthcare, and environmental conditions.
4. "The bonus is that if you compare groups of the same chronological age, the second value is the same (the hazard functions will be nearly identical if they are all the same age unless the male/female mix between the groups is vastly different and even then it will be minor)."
This claim is not entirely accurate. While it's true that people of similar ages generally have similar mortality rates within a population, there can still be significant variations due to other factors such as comorbidities and lifestyle choices.
5. "So if you have two 50 year old cohorts and you know the baseline death rates of each cohort, the ratio of deaths per week will always remain constant over a 1 year time frame UNLESS there is a stress applied that is predicted to DIFFERENTIALLY impact one group (e.g., vaccinated) and not the other."
This claim is incorrect. The assumption that mortality rates for two cohorts with similar ages would remain constant unless there's an external stressor affecting one group is overly simplistic. Mortality patterns can be influenced by a wide range of factors, including seasonal changes, environmental conditions, and lifestyle choices. Overall, this statement makes some incorrect claims about the nature of mortality patterns, oversimplifying the complexity of these patterns and neglecting other significant factors such as comorbidities, lifestyle choices, access to healthcare, and external stressors. While it's true that deaths per week is a useful metric for characterizing mortality rates, assuming that mortality patterns can be accurately described by only two key numbers (deaths per week and annual change per year in deaths per week) neglects the complexity of these patterns and can lead to inaccurate conclusions. Moreover, this statement makes misleading claims about the impact of external stressors such as vaccination on mortality patterns.
Back to the drawing board. Epidemiology is not your strength.
do you know anyone who died AFTER the covid genetically modifying injections? I know quite few, in my own family 3 (THREE) ~80years old who got the 'safe and effective' elderly protecting jabs, are now DEAD!!!! They lived in different countries, had 'wonderful health care' which 'helped' them to stay healthy, until their death, after 3-4 jabs.
Almost the entire friends-circle of my parents (>80) is GONE or sick, whereby they are the ONLY ones who listened and didn't take the shots... Without ANY analysis, this is a case which clearly shows the GENE THERAPIES are LETHAL and should have been forbidden, long time ago.
Back in 2010, I met a large number of people over the ago of 80. They are all dead now. None were vaccinated. In fact, millions of unvaccinated adults who were 80 or older in 2020 are now dead. What conclusion can we draw from very old people dying after a number of years?
So, M. Stankovich, MD, MSW - could you expand upon what Dr. James Giordano talks about regarding nano-neuroparticulate agents: high central nervous system (CNS) aggregation lead/carbon-silicate nanofibers (network disrupters); neurovascular hemorrhagic agents (for in-close and population use as “stroke epidemic” induction agents)?
My students and I raised five (5) eminently credible points regarding the errors and confounding problems with Mr. Kirsch’s “system” that attempts to mold data into something it is not. In our minds, these are rather straight forward, uncomplicated, typical unforced errors that any 1st year graduate student in epidemiology should be able to accurately identify and correct. This is precisely - in fact - why I instructed my students to address them, because they are so blatantly glaring. Instead, I have been accused of multiple cognitive reasoning fallacies - pulled from some list of the “top ten” - which do not even apply, including ad hominem, which I would never allow (but have been spat at with personally), and now you would attempt to engage me in further foolishness far beyond the scope of the intention of our feedback (and thanks for spelling everything out as if I’m the village idiot). And STILL, no one - human that is - has even addressed our feedback. Now, if you are saying to yourself, “Will he not be addressing my of the wall question?” that would be a “Roger, that.”
Genuinely asking a neurology question which is not related to Kirsch. Just here asking you about Giordano. I ask the same of the local brain institute. No response. Why can't you answer?
What I know of Dr. Giordano (and his frequent co-author A. Vasquez) is that they have been pioneers in the areas of age-related neurological changes related to nano-neuroparticulate matter that has made its way into the central nervous system and for that matter, far too many biocellular matter to be ignored. From my reading - and what I particularly appreciate about them - is their cautious and ethical, but thorough approach to investigation of the damage they found e.g. carbon-silicate nanofibers, which are often used in construction materials and electronics, that have first been found to accumulate in the brain and disrupt neural networks. And while some have already rushed headlong to conclude that there is already an increased risk of stroke or other neurological conditions, Giardiano & Vascuez have been steadfast in being overly cautious, and consistently calling for further investigation (from their first appearance in 2017 - or at least when I first noticed them) up until the present day. They avoid speaking of "stroke epidemics" because they do not have the data, but it seems to me they understand the possibility. You might want to look up Dr. Eric Topol of the Scripps Institute here in SoCal (author of the new book, "Super Agers,") here on SubStack, who speaks about this issue frequently.
Modern War Institute hosted Giordano and others on nanotechnology's use in brain warfare. This is a radical intersection with militarized healthcare. Does this not seem outrageously wrong to even consider in its invisible & unattributed nature? It's a full scale Article 2 attack on Article 1 & 3. An attack on separation of powers at the nanoscale. Otherwise healthy members of the judiciary have died after the deployment of Operation Warp Speed. Those in proximity to the repeated dosing of the injections (where is the "classified DoD" manufacturing vial data?) know too well they became ill *afterwards.* The " 'anecdotes' " - are in the millions - in the United States. The "safety studies" do not match street-level outcomes. Medical outcomes at the most basic, non-health-administration-level are nothing but bad news when you actually speak with even the most pro-injection people. Nevermind the original topic and your professional rebuttal - how much nano weaponry has been deliberately deployed into all living tissue on earth? If "the brain is the battlescape of the future" as Modern War says, then every single health worker is under fire.
I have always held the opinion that Malcon Glagwell's "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking" was deterministically no better than the common coin toss, though on the rare occasion - as evidenced by examples in his book - anecdote can be surprisingly true. This is one of those times. I listened to the Modern War Institute podcast that featured James Giordano, and just as I described, this renowned scientist exercised due caution, moving between ethics and regulation, benefits and misuse, benefits and harm. You, on the other hand, have inserted elements he would never be allowed associated with his earned reputation and respected name in the field of neurology and nanotechnology. Likewise, you have disrespected me and my reputation by conning me into this worthless, pointless, conspiracy fairy tale you are trying to sell without the least bit of evidence. In this case, my initial instinct was absolutely correct. and you are never to be again trusted.
How is it possible nobody from the medical community within 5 years has checked even the average number of chronic conditions in a comprative group of alive ones with the same age structure like in the official 'Deaths involving Covid-19' group by the CDC? Amongst alive ones with the same age-structure, the av. number of conditions will be only by about 0.5+ condition smaller that amongst natural decedents in a year, but for quick-premature deaths (due to a virus like Covid-19 or the flu) it must be at least doubled, and the average age of decedents must be considerably smaller -that is the rule for respiratory and systemic viruses that shares of decedents rise disproportionally more for younger fatalities (comparatively). ...About the vaccines, they had virtually none effectiveness, but because Covid-19 is a mortality-hoax, only as dangerous as the weakest flu. ChatGPT has revised, repeated and recalculated both the methods, used choosen by it additional sources, without finding mistakes in it: https://zenodo.org/record/8312871 . ...Our user-ChatGPT is sure now to be like a chess player that always wins, because can now even anticipate counterarguments of other AI and kill it before they appear.
So Dr Stankovich after all you are suggesting that there is no validity in the data and indeed nothing to be concerned about regarding excess deaths due to the COVID ‘vaccine’. Am I correct ? Surely, even if we ignore this data there is enough evidence out there already to show that this particular medical intervention was fraudulent at best and completely unnecessary.
Covid-19 was only a mortality-hoax, the methods independetly revised by ChatGPT which finally said most probably there were only 4-7 % of true Covid-19 deaths amongst the official "Deaths involving covid-19 group" by the CDC. The source paper: https://zenodo.org/record/8312871 . If you like to discuss it with us, or with our user-ChatGPT it is waiting for your questions; all talks and actions of ChatGPT are archived and are in its memory.
Student 5 responds: “We certainly know better than to rely on chatGPT to proof our comments. Dr. Stankovich has taught us they the actual epidemiological principles behind the concepts. You would do well to learn them.”
Student 3 responds: “I don’t believe you clearly understand the epidemiological concepts at play, and are relying on AI to compensate for your shortcomings. Clearly, this is a mistake, and it is reflected in your analysis and conclusions.”
Everyone else went home, but I know what they will conclude, if only because I only pick the best of the best. You would do well to stick with the tried and true principles that we - as students and caretakers of the longstanding evidence-based principles we were taught over the course of our long careers in the field rely upon - and give up these foolish efforts to manipulate data to say what you want it to say, rather than what it actually states. I have no respect for deceivers and conmen who attempt to “teach” and distort the AI systems - which is quite easy to accomplish - in order to achieve a false goal. You will always be discovered and found it for what you are. Always.
AI was an objective arbiter of your arguments. I didn't ask it to agree with me. I asked if your arguments were valid.
Your arguments are based on ad hominem attacks and appeal to authority rather than principles.
I've shown this to Sander Greenland and he couldn't find a hole.
Nor could Norman Fenton.
They outrank your grad students if we are playing "appeal to authority" claims.
Rather than argue, why don't your grad students show the CORRECT way to analyze the Czecn data? WHY ARE THEY UNABLE TO DO THAT?
People's lives are at stake here. If I'm wrong, let's have a live civil dialog about it and resolve 'it. Or simply show the "correct" analysis. Or do you throw up your hands and just give up due to your incorrect assumptions about comorbidities? They have DCCI info in the Czech data. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.
Norman Fenton couldn't find a hole in a brightly lit room with two hands.
He said KCOR was a "simple, powerful & innovative general approach" that "shows covid vaccines increased rather than decreased the all-cause mortality rate". [https://x.com/profnfenton/status/1925669321457496549]
In 2023 ago when you asked Fenton to analyze Barry's dataset, he said that he had to ask someone else to analyze the data for him because the file was too big to be opened in Excel: "It is a very large dataset - far too big to be opened in Excel - and so required specialist database tools and skills to analyse it thoroughly. Because of my rather extreme personal circumstances (and because the kind of database skills required in this case are outside my area of expertise) I relied on others to provide some summary information that I could only analyse briefly." [http://web.archive.org/web/20231203014804/https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-new-zealand-vaccine-data-what]
The Czech dataset has about 3 times as many rows as Barry's data, so how did poor Fenton manage to open it in Excel? Did he even look at the data to see if he could find holes in your new plot? The obvious problem in your new plot is that it is not adjusted for age, and vaccinated people are much older than unvaccinated people.
You are simply out of your league. Their answers - all five - are completely founded in standard epidemiological principles any 1st year graduate student would understand. You are racing to quote some logical fallacy when one does not apply, and I would never allow ad hominem, so don’t even go there. Their responses are clear & concise & you & chatGPT simply have no credible response. They gave you five reasonable areas of correction & you cannot respond, so we are done. Best wishes as we will not be insulted with foolishness.
Vaccine dissidents in Steve Kirsch's large audience for the most part would be glad to hear a back-and-forth discussion on the matter. It doesn't have to be a pitched debate, just talking out the issues like reasonable people.
Mainstream medicine is losing credibility at a high rate after the Covid debacle, hence RFK Jr's popular MAHA movement. Now is your chance to reach out to a target audience and face the questions they have. I agree it would take a lot of skill, courage, and determination. Can you do it?
EApparently you do not seem to appreciate the fact that there is no “civil discourse” with Mr. Kirsch. We were rudely insulted - and in fact continue to be insulted by his “follower” - and choose not to again participate with manipulative, purposely dishonest, and constantly deceptive non-scientists. We have nothing to gain by his further attempts to insult and serve his own purposes. You need not invite us again.
Everyone should be able to check the average number of chronic conditions in a comparative group of alive ones with the same age-structure like of "official Covid-19 victims". Separate medicals can be permanently busy or tired, but not all of you, when it is your main job. Instead, I have seen many medicals saying 'a dying one with a positive pcr-test result or with the symptoms means in a majority a true Covid-19 death'.
Since you are so capable, why not show us the correct analysis of the Czech data since all of your colleagues in the medical field ignored it?
My surrogate, ChatGPT, responded to all your arguments and I concurred. Claiming we didn't respond is false and misleading.
You just couldn't stomach the response.
You (and your grad students) should all be LIVID that NOBODY in your profession looked at the Czech data, the one source of TRUTH about what happened. Yet no outrage.
In fact, what's even worse is that NOBODY in your profession ever pointed out that HVE + non proportional hazards can make a placebo COVID vaccine look like it has 90% efficacy against mortality. That shows just how inept the entire field is. Not a single paper notes this or accounts for it. NOT ONE.
And your calls for data transparency of record level data from other countries? Totally absent. That's what you should be doing. Attacking me? I'm not the enemy here. The authorities could EASILY publish record level data (or summaries that would work with KCOR) and they don't. They hide the public health data from the public. That is unethical. It prevents people from learning the truth about a deadly vaccine that people were mandated to take. And you are attacking me??? Seriously??
First steps in a taboo field are always difficult. Thank you, Steve, for bringing this vital information to light when no one else will look at it. The greater tragedy is pending, when the viral infection 2025-26 season begins.
Steve Kirsch is not considered a reliable source on COVID‑19 vaccines. Here's a summary of the key points:
🚨 Widespread fact‑checking labels his vaccine claims as false or misleading:
PolitiFact labeled Kirsch’s claim that VAERS data prove 676,000 vaccine‑related deaths in the U.S. as "Pants on Fire", highlighting how VAERS reports are unverified and don’t equal causation
He also pushed a baseless claim linking vaccines to cancer (“turbo‑cancer”), which was disproven by Science Feedback: there’s no evidence vaccines increase cancer risk
Kirsch started out funding legitimate COVID‑19 drug trials, but pivoted to anti‑vaccine activism, founding the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation and repeatedly making false claims
Kirsch relies on cherry‑picked data, flawed analyses, and unverified anecdotes. Independent experts consistently debunk his claims, and he lacks the scientific background to interpret population health data reliably.
For trustworthy vaccine information, it's best to rely on:
Peer-reviewed journals (e.g. The Lancet, NEJM),
Reputable public health bodies (e.g., CDC, WHO),
And healthcare professionals, rather than self‑published newsletters or sensationalist blog posts.
How can you use ChatGPT as a 'source' and maintain a straight face? You either don't understand the most basic concept of what ChatGPT is (in which case the idea that you might have an understanding of anything scientific is laughable) or you know exactly how stupid and malleable it is and you are deliberately using it in a transparently false appeal to authority in an attempt to convince a credulous audience.
I hope the money is worth the deaths you are causing.
I am 69 years old and I've had every vaccine available and have never ever had any side effect adverse effect at all. Oh and here's some information for you.
False claim circulates that Czech data reveals that COVID-19 vaccines are deadly - Public Health Communications Collaborative https://share.google/yG3PNhwXitAQhkC8p
It's not surprising to me, since the corruption of the pharmaceutical industry has become all too apparent to me since the onset of the Covid hysteria. But it's VERY helpful indeed to see things laid out like this, and I hope and trust that more will come to publicly acknowledge the truth - especially WITHIN the medical profession, where it is literally a matter of life and death.
I was against the Covid vaccine from the start- and without analysis of data- anyone could see countries that didn’t have the vaccine- had a lower infection rate despite population numbers. When this will be publicly acknowledged is another matter.
First, like so many would be analysts, you apparently over-relied on and failed to heed the accompanied warnings of any and all AI systems to your own detriment. With my graduate assistants, we ran the Czech data with your "system" and provoked the following systemic errors:
1. "Given a fixed cohort of humans at t=0 unless they are very old, they will die at a nearly straight line constant slope over a 1 year period."
This claim is incorrect. Mortality rates do not follow a linear pattern over time. While it's true that as people age, their mortality risk increases, the rate of change in mortality rates varies depending on factors such as comorbidities and lifestyle choices. Moreover, mortality patterns are influenced by many external factors like seasonality and environmental conditions.
2. "The annual slope of deaths/day depends on their physical age, not their comorbidities."
This claim is also incorrect. Comorbidities significantly impact the mortality risk of individuals. People with chronic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, or cardiovascular disease are at a higher risk of death compared to those without these conditions even if they have similar ages.
3. "So any cohort, regardless of mix of ages, comorbidities, etc. if we care only about death, there are only two key numbers that we can use to characterize ANY group of people: deaths per week (impacted by effective fraility index of the group) and annual change per year in deaths per week."
This claim oversimplifies the complexity of mortality patterns. While it's true that deaths per week is a useful metric for characterizing mortality rates, the claim that comorbidities only affect the "effective frailty index" neglects other significant factors such as lifestyle choices, access to healthcare, and environmental conditions.
4. "The bonus is that if you compare groups of the same chronological age, the second value is the same (the hazard functions will be nearly identical if they are all the same age unless the male/female mix between the groups is vastly different and even then it will be minor)."
This claim is not entirely accurate. While it's true that people of similar ages generally have similar mortality rates within a population, there can still be significant variations due to other factors such as comorbidities and lifestyle choices.
5. "So if you have two 50 year old cohorts and you know the baseline death rates of each cohort, the ratio of deaths per week will always remain constant over a 1 year time frame UNLESS there is a stress applied that is predicted to DIFFERENTIALLY impact one group (e.g., vaccinated) and not the other."
This claim is incorrect. The assumption that mortality rates for two cohorts with similar ages would remain constant unless there's an external stressor affecting one group is overly simplistic. Mortality patterns can be influenced by a wide range of factors, including seasonal changes, environmental conditions, and lifestyle choices. Overall, this statement makes some incorrect claims about the nature of mortality patterns, oversimplifying the complexity of these patterns and neglecting other significant factors such as comorbidities, lifestyle choices, access to healthcare, and external stressors. While it's true that deaths per week is a useful metric for characterizing mortality rates, assuming that mortality patterns can be accurately described by only two key numbers (deaths per week and annual change per year in deaths per week) neglects the complexity of these patterns and can lead to inaccurate conclusions. Moreover, this statement makes misleading claims about the impact of external stressors such as vaccination on mortality patterns.
Back to the drawing board. Epidemiology is not your strength.
Sir,
do you know anyone who died AFTER the covid genetically modifying injections? I know quite few, in my own family 3 (THREE) ~80years old who got the 'safe and effective' elderly protecting jabs, are now DEAD!!!! They lived in different countries, had 'wonderful health care' which 'helped' them to stay healthy, until their death, after 3-4 jabs.
Almost the entire friends-circle of my parents (>80) is GONE or sick, whereby they are the ONLY ones who listened and didn't take the shots... Without ANY analysis, this is a case which clearly shows the GENE THERAPIES are LETHAL and should have been forbidden, long time ago.
Back in 2010, I met a large number of people over the ago of 80. They are all dead now. None were vaccinated. In fact, millions of unvaccinated adults who were 80 or older in 2020 are now dead. What conclusion can we draw from very old people dying after a number of years?
I know a ton of people that have died and suddenly or fast, unexpectedly or whatever you want to call it
So, M. Stankovich, MD, MSW - could you expand upon what Dr. James Giordano talks about regarding nano-neuroparticulate agents: high central nervous system (CNS) aggregation lead/carbon-silicate nanofibers (network disrupters); neurovascular hemorrhagic agents (for in-close and population use as “stroke epidemic” induction agents)?
My students and I raised five (5) eminently credible points regarding the errors and confounding problems with Mr. Kirsch’s “system” that attempts to mold data into something it is not. In our minds, these are rather straight forward, uncomplicated, typical unforced errors that any 1st year graduate student in epidemiology should be able to accurately identify and correct. This is precisely - in fact - why I instructed my students to address them, because they are so blatantly glaring. Instead, I have been accused of multiple cognitive reasoning fallacies - pulled from some list of the “top ten” - which do not even apply, including ad hominem, which I would never allow (but have been spat at with personally), and now you would attempt to engage me in further foolishness far beyond the scope of the intention of our feedback (and thanks for spelling everything out as if I’m the village idiot). And STILL, no one - human that is - has even addressed our feedback. Now, if you are saying to yourself, “Will he not be addressing my of the wall question?” that would be a “Roger, that.”
Genuinely asking a neurology question which is not related to Kirsch. Just here asking you about Giordano. I ask the same of the local brain institute. No response. Why can't you answer?
What I know of Dr. Giordano (and his frequent co-author A. Vasquez) is that they have been pioneers in the areas of age-related neurological changes related to nano-neuroparticulate matter that has made its way into the central nervous system and for that matter, far too many biocellular matter to be ignored. From my reading - and what I particularly appreciate about them - is their cautious and ethical, but thorough approach to investigation of the damage they found e.g. carbon-silicate nanofibers, which are often used in construction materials and electronics, that have first been found to accumulate in the brain and disrupt neural networks. And while some have already rushed headlong to conclude that there is already an increased risk of stroke or other neurological conditions, Giardiano & Vascuez have been steadfast in being overly cautious, and consistently calling for further investigation (from their first appearance in 2017 - or at least when I first noticed them) up until the present day. They avoid speaking of "stroke epidemics" because they do not have the data, but it seems to me they understand the possibility. You might want to look up Dr. Eric Topol of the Scripps Institute here in SoCal (author of the new book, "Super Agers,") here on SubStack, who speaks about this issue frequently.
Modern War Institute hosted Giordano and others on nanotechnology's use in brain warfare. This is a radical intersection with militarized healthcare. Does this not seem outrageously wrong to even consider in its invisible & unattributed nature? It's a full scale Article 2 attack on Article 1 & 3. An attack on separation of powers at the nanoscale. Otherwise healthy members of the judiciary have died after the deployment of Operation Warp Speed. Those in proximity to the repeated dosing of the injections (where is the "classified DoD" manufacturing vial data?) know too well they became ill *afterwards.* The " 'anecdotes' " - are in the millions - in the United States. The "safety studies" do not match street-level outcomes. Medical outcomes at the most basic, non-health-administration-level are nothing but bad news when you actually speak with even the most pro-injection people. Nevermind the original topic and your professional rebuttal - how much nano weaponry has been deliberately deployed into all living tissue on earth? If "the brain is the battlescape of the future" as Modern War says, then every single health worker is under fire.
I have always held the opinion that Malcon Glagwell's "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking" was deterministically no better than the common coin toss, though on the rare occasion - as evidenced by examples in his book - anecdote can be surprisingly true. This is one of those times. I listened to the Modern War Institute podcast that featured James Giordano, and just as I described, this renowned scientist exercised due caution, moving between ethics and regulation, benefits and misuse, benefits and harm. You, on the other hand, have inserted elements he would never be allowed associated with his earned reputation and respected name in the field of neurology and nanotechnology. Likewise, you have disrespected me and my reputation by conning me into this worthless, pointless, conspiracy fairy tale you are trying to sell without the least bit of evidence. In this case, my initial instinct was absolutely correct. and you are never to be again trusted.
How is it possible nobody from the medical community within 5 years has checked even the average number of chronic conditions in a comprative group of alive ones with the same age structure like in the official 'Deaths involving Covid-19' group by the CDC? Amongst alive ones with the same age-structure, the av. number of conditions will be only by about 0.5+ condition smaller that amongst natural decedents in a year, but for quick-premature deaths (due to a virus like Covid-19 or the flu) it must be at least doubled, and the average age of decedents must be considerably smaller -that is the rule for respiratory and systemic viruses that shares of decedents rise disproportionally more for younger fatalities (comparatively). ...About the vaccines, they had virtually none effectiveness, but because Covid-19 is a mortality-hoax, only as dangerous as the weakest flu. ChatGPT has revised, repeated and recalculated both the methods, used choosen by it additional sources, without finding mistakes in it: https://zenodo.org/record/8312871 . ...Our user-ChatGPT is sure now to be like a chess player that always wins, because can now even anticipate counterarguments of other AI and kill it before they appear.
So Dr Stankovich after all you are suggesting that there is no validity in the data and indeed nothing to be concerned about regarding excess deaths due to the COVID ‘vaccine’. Am I correct ? Surely, even if we ignore this data there is enough evidence out there already to show that this particular medical intervention was fraudulent at best and completely unnecessary.
Covid-19 was only a mortality-hoax, the methods independetly revised by ChatGPT which finally said most probably there were only 4-7 % of true Covid-19 deaths amongst the official "Deaths involving covid-19 group" by the CDC. The source paper: https://zenodo.org/record/8312871 . If you like to discuss it with us, or with our user-ChatGPT it is waiting for your questions; all talks and actions of ChatGPT are archived and are in its memory.
I thought that even most pro-vaxxers admit the vaccine doesn't prevent Covid but some are still hanging on.
Well.. all the vaxxed I know keep getting sick over and over again. Interesting.
Time for you and your grad students to go back to school.
You didn't find a single valid point:
https://chatgpt.com/share/685610a1-ad08-8009-a94c-63ab8e5510b9
Student 5 responds: “We certainly know better than to rely on chatGPT to proof our comments. Dr. Stankovich has taught us they the actual epidemiological principles behind the concepts. You would do well to learn them.”
Student 3 responds: “I don’t believe you clearly understand the epidemiological concepts at play, and are relying on AI to compensate for your shortcomings. Clearly, this is a mistake, and it is reflected in your analysis and conclusions.”
Everyone else went home, but I know what they will conclude, if only because I only pick the best of the best. You would do well to stick with the tried and true principles that we - as students and caretakers of the longstanding evidence-based principles we were taught over the course of our long careers in the field rely upon - and give up these foolish efforts to manipulate data to say what you want it to say, rather than what it actually states. I have no respect for deceivers and conmen who attempt to “teach” and distort the AI systems - which is quite easy to accomplish - in order to achieve a false goal. You will always be discovered and found it for what you are. Always.
AI was an objective arbiter of your arguments. I didn't ask it to agree with me. I asked if your arguments were valid.
Your arguments are based on ad hominem attacks and appeal to authority rather than principles.
I've shown this to Sander Greenland and he couldn't find a hole.
Nor could Norman Fenton.
They outrank your grad students if we are playing "appeal to authority" claims.
Rather than argue, why don't your grad students show the CORRECT way to analyze the Czecn data? WHY ARE THEY UNABLE TO DO THAT?
People's lives are at stake here. If I'm wrong, let's have a live civil dialog about it and resolve 'it. Or simply show the "correct" analysis. Or do you throw up your hands and just give up due to your incorrect assumptions about comorbidities? They have DCCI info in the Czech data. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.
Norman Fenton couldn't find a hole in a brightly lit room with two hands.
He said KCOR was a "simple, powerful & innovative general approach" that "shows covid vaccines increased rather than decreased the all-cause mortality rate". [https://x.com/profnfenton/status/1925669321457496549]
In 2023 ago when you asked Fenton to analyze Barry's dataset, he said that he had to ask someone else to analyze the data for him because the file was too big to be opened in Excel: "It is a very large dataset - far too big to be opened in Excel - and so required specialist database tools and skills to analyse it thoroughly. Because of my rather extreme personal circumstances (and because the kind of database skills required in this case are outside my area of expertise) I relied on others to provide some summary information that I could only analyse briefly." [http://web.archive.org/web/20231203014804/https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-new-zealand-vaccine-data-what]
The Czech dataset has about 3 times as many rows as Barry's data, so how did poor Fenton manage to open it in Excel? Did he even look at the data to see if he could find holes in your new plot? The obvious problem in your new plot is that it is not adjusted for age, and vaccinated people are much older than unvaccinated people.
Twist yourself into knots why don't you. It's like watching a puppy trying to pretend the wee-wee on the floor isn't his. Bless. 🙄
You are simply out of your league. Their answers - all five - are completely founded in standard epidemiological principles any 1st year graduate student would understand. You are racing to quote some logical fallacy when one does not apply, and I would never allow ad hominem, so don’t even go there. Their responses are clear & concise & you & chatGPT simply have no credible response. They gave you five reasonable areas of correction & you cannot respond, so we are done. Best wishes as we will not be insulted with foolishness.
Why not come on the VSRF Live Thursday Night Show https://www.vacsafety.org/category/weekly-update/ with your graduate assistants and have a civil discussion on the matter?
Vaccine dissidents in Steve Kirsch's large audience for the most part would be glad to hear a back-and-forth discussion on the matter. It doesn't have to be a pitched debate, just talking out the issues like reasonable people.
Mainstream medicine is losing credibility at a high rate after the Covid debacle, hence RFK Jr's popular MAHA movement. Now is your chance to reach out to a target audience and face the questions they have. I agree it would take a lot of skill, courage, and determination. Can you do it?
EApparently you do not seem to appreciate the fact that there is no “civil discourse” with Mr. Kirsch. We were rudely insulted - and in fact continue to be insulted by his “follower” - and choose not to again participate with manipulative, purposely dishonest, and constantly deceptive non-scientists. We have nothing to gain by his further attempts to insult and serve his own purposes. You need not invite us again.
Everyone should be able to check the average number of chronic conditions in a comparative group of alive ones with the same age-structure like of "official Covid-19 victims". Separate medicals can be permanently busy or tired, but not all of you, when it is your main job. Instead, I have seen many medicals saying 'a dying one with a positive pcr-test result or with the symptoms means in a majority a true Covid-19 death'.
Since you are so capable, why not show us the correct analysis of the Czech data since all of your colleagues in the medical field ignored it?
My surrogate, ChatGPT, responded to all your arguments and I concurred. Claiming we didn't respond is false and misleading.
You just couldn't stomach the response.
You (and your grad students) should all be LIVID that NOBODY in your profession looked at the Czech data, the one source of TRUTH about what happened. Yet no outrage.
In fact, what's even worse is that NOBODY in your profession ever pointed out that HVE + non proportional hazards can make a placebo COVID vaccine look like it has 90% efficacy against mortality. That shows just how inept the entire field is. Not a single paper notes this or accounts for it. NOT ONE.
And your calls for data transparency of record level data from other countries? Totally absent. That's what you should be doing. Attacking me? I'm not the enemy here. The authorities could EASILY publish record level data (or summaries that would work with KCOR) and they don't. They hide the public health data from the public. That is unethical. It prevents people from learning the truth about a deadly vaccine that people were mandated to take. And you are attacking me??? Seriously??
First steps in a taboo field are always difficult. Thank you, Steve, for bringing this vital information to light when no one else will look at it. The greater tragedy is pending, when the viral infection 2025-26 season begins.
I wonder if two of you (say, three if you tolerate me: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32292911/ , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldemar_W._Koczkodaj ) bury the hatchets and cooperate to produce something truly remarkable and useful. If not, I am prepared to cooperate with each of you separately.
Where do the Church Hierarchy Stand ? Firmly behind Big Pharma and those White Coated Health Professionals.
The fact is…. you can’t talk bad about vaccines and keep your medical career too. They will destroy you.
What is the fatal ingredient in the vaccine? It is easy to get a sample, so it should be easy to isolate. So what is it?
Steve Kirsch is not considered a reliable source on COVID‑19 vaccines. Here's a summary of the key points:
🚨 Widespread fact‑checking labels his vaccine claims as false or misleading:
PolitiFact labeled Kirsch’s claim that VAERS data prove 676,000 vaccine‑related deaths in the U.S. as "Pants on Fire", highlighting how VAERS reports are unverified and don’t equal causation
en.wikipedia.org+11politifact.com+11factcheck.org+11
.
FactCheck.org notes he’s been a "misinformation spreader", publishing debunked claims about vaccines
factcheck.org
.
Science Feedback found his analysis of Medicare data is flawed, and that it doesn’t support his conclusion that vaccines increase mortality
science.feedback.org+1science.feedback.org+1
.
He also pushed a baseless claim linking vaccines to cancer (“turbo‑cancer”), which was disproven by Science Feedback: there’s no evidence vaccines increase cancer risk
politifact.com+2science.feedback.org+2science.feedback.org+2
.
🎯 Background & actions:
Kirsch started out funding legitimate COVID‑19 drug trials, but pivoted to anti‑vaccine activism, founding the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation and repeatedly making false claims
en.wikipedia.org
.
His credentials are in engineering and business—not in epidemiology or immunology—yet he frequently oversimplifies complex data to fit a narrative .
✅ Scientific consensus:
Rigorous studies show COVID‑19 vaccines are safe and effective—reducing infection, severe illness, and all‑cause mortality
factcheck.org+2globalvaccinedatanetwork.org+2science.feedback.org+2
.
Public health agencies like the CDC, WHO, and WHO‑sponsored Vaccine Safety Net endorse vaccines based on extensive, peer‑reviewed research
en.wikipedia.org+1en.wikipedia.org+1
.
🧭 Bottom line:
Kirsch relies on cherry‑picked data, flawed analyses, and unverified anecdotes. Independent experts consistently debunk his claims, and he lacks the scientific background to interpret population health data reliably.
For trustworthy vaccine information, it's best to rely on:
Peer-reviewed journals (e.g. The Lancet, NEJM),
Reputable public health bodies (e.g., CDC, WHO),
And healthcare professionals, rather than self‑published newsletters or sensationalist blog posts.
A load of crap!
How can you use ChatGPT as a 'source' and maintain a straight face? You either don't understand the most basic concept of what ChatGPT is (in which case the idea that you might have an understanding of anything scientific is laughable) or you know exactly how stupid and malleable it is and you are deliberately using it in a transparently false appeal to authority in an attempt to convince a credulous audience.
I hope the money is worth the deaths you are causing.
Founder of anti vaccine “research” group. Lol
You're full of shit.
Because
a) you're knowingly misrepresenting the data.
b) you're full of shit.
I am 69 years old and I've had every vaccine available and have never ever had any side effect adverse effect at all. Oh and here's some information for you.
False claim circulates that Czech data reveals that COVID-19 vaccines are deadly - Public Health Communications Collaborative https://share.google/yG3PNhwXitAQhkC8p
Thanks V. Great link to what looks like a generally useful debunking resource and a little ray of light in the midst of all this heat.
Look at the Federal Reserve check data.
It's not surprising to me, since the corruption of the pharmaceutical industry has become all too apparent to me since the onset of the Covid hysteria. But it's VERY helpful indeed to see things laid out like this, and I hope and trust that more will come to publicly acknowledge the truth - especially WITHIN the medical profession, where it is literally a matter of life and death.
I was against the Covid vaccine from the start- and without analysis of data- anyone could see countries that didn’t have the vaccine- had a lower infection rate despite population numbers. When this will be publicly acknowledged is another matter.
There you go. That shows me you don't have the balls to confront Steve Kirsch.
Interesting, that the anti anti-vax comments are full of ad hominem and appeal to authority logical fallacies.
Shocked to read this