I fear this terrible analysis will end up being extremely damaging to your credibility, Steve. If your hypothesis were correct, there would be a massive peak in excess deaths in high % vax states like Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, etc. But there isn't even a little surge of deaths in those states t…
I fear this terrible analysis will end up being extremely damaging to your credibility, Steve. If your hypothesis were correct, there would be a massive peak in excess deaths in high % vax states like Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, etc. But there isn't even a little surge of deaths in those states that summer/fall. The massive surge in excess deaths occurs in the states you would least expect to see them if trying to correlate with vax, states like AL, MS, AR, FL. Delta was a *regional* covid surge due to lack of sun/Vit D because it's 95 degrees down here by June/July. Just look at the state charts!
Steve's hypothetical "5 month peak" in excess deaths is almost EXACTLY consistent with the Pfizer and Moderna "gold standard" randomized clinical trial results. In the first month or so of follow-up, both the Pfizer and Moderna trials had less deaths in the vaccine groups than the placebo groups, and this is perfectly consistent with Steve's data not showing any excess deaths soon after the shots. (The Pfizer trial did have ONE death 3 days post first dose which the vaccine almost certainly caused or contributed to, but this was very rare and likely to be outweighed by even a miniscule "benefit" of the shots during the Alpha variant when they "sorta" worked). But then between ~1 month post-vaccination and the unblinding of the clinical trials around 6 months post-vaccination, BOTH trials' vaccine groups had incurred excess deaths compared to their placebo groups, such that the vaccine groups now had equal or slightly greater death totals than the placebo groups, hence the famous line "the vaccines kill more than they save". IIRC, even after both trials were unblinded, the trend continued with more deaths occurring in the original vaccine groups (vaccinated ~6 months earlier), in comparison to the original placebo groups (newly vaccinated) which had less deaths.
Sure, a significant fraction of excess deaths during the period Steve is talking about were due to Delta. Subtracting the Delta deaths (which needs to be done) will greatly reduce the magnitude, but it DOES NOT refute Steve's hypothesis. Especially since the "gold standard" randomized clinical trial results from BOTH Pfizer and Moderna independently match Steve's hypothesis almost exactly. You would need a lot of "coincidences" to refute Steve's hypothesis.
If you don't believe me about the clinical trial deaths, or if my writing isn't eloquent enough, Alex Berenson summarized this nicely in a Substack post long time ago (in essence, he's saying the excess deaths happened around the 2-6 month window, NOT before 2 months):
"In their initial safety report to the FDA, which contained data through November 2020, the researchers had said four placebo recipients and two vaccine recipients died, one after the first dose and one after the second. The July update reversed that trend. Between November 2020 and March 2021, 13 vaccine recipients died, compared to only 10 placebo subjects."
Actually, you just need 1 example to refute a theory, but we have several. There is almost no surge in excess mortality in high % vax states like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, etc. If you remove the deaths *attributed* to Delta/covid, the SSA chart would essentially look flat. If a hypothesis was correct, it would be true all over the US.
"you just need 1 example to refute a theory" is definitely not true- even your favorite theory will have many exceptions, you know that. But much more importantly, "CDC data" is neither trustworthy nor scientifically sound. Randomized, double-blind clinical trials (a.k.a. "the gold standard in medical research") are infinitely superior, though obviously not perfect.
Could this just be Delta? YES!
I fear this terrible analysis will end up being extremely damaging to your credibility, Steve. If your hypothesis were correct, there would be a massive peak in excess deaths in high % vax states like Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, etc. But there isn't even a little surge of deaths in those states that summer/fall. The massive surge in excess deaths occurs in the states you would least expect to see them if trying to correlate with vax, states like AL, MS, AR, FL. Delta was a *regional* covid surge due to lack of sun/Vit D because it's 95 degrees down here by June/July. Just look at the state charts!
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
Steve's hypothetical "5 month peak" in excess deaths is almost EXACTLY consistent with the Pfizer and Moderna "gold standard" randomized clinical trial results. In the first month or so of follow-up, both the Pfizer and Moderna trials had less deaths in the vaccine groups than the placebo groups, and this is perfectly consistent with Steve's data not showing any excess deaths soon after the shots. (The Pfizer trial did have ONE death 3 days post first dose which the vaccine almost certainly caused or contributed to, but this was very rare and likely to be outweighed by even a miniscule "benefit" of the shots during the Alpha variant when they "sorta" worked). But then between ~1 month post-vaccination and the unblinding of the clinical trials around 6 months post-vaccination, BOTH trials' vaccine groups had incurred excess deaths compared to their placebo groups, such that the vaccine groups now had equal or slightly greater death totals than the placebo groups, hence the famous line "the vaccines kill more than they save". IIRC, even after both trials were unblinded, the trend continued with more deaths occurring in the original vaccine groups (vaccinated ~6 months earlier), in comparison to the original placebo groups (newly vaccinated) which had less deaths.
Sure, a significant fraction of excess deaths during the period Steve is talking about were due to Delta. Subtracting the Delta deaths (which needs to be done) will greatly reduce the magnitude, but it DOES NOT refute Steve's hypothesis. Especially since the "gold standard" randomized clinical trial results from BOTH Pfizer and Moderna independently match Steve's hypothesis almost exactly. You would need a lot of "coincidences" to refute Steve's hypothesis.
If you don't believe me about the clinical trial deaths, or if my writing isn't eloquent enough, Alex Berenson summarized this nicely in a Substack post long time ago (in essence, he's saying the excess deaths happened around the 2-6 month window, NOT before 2 months):
"In their initial safety report to the FDA, which contained data through November 2020, the researchers had said four placebo recipients and two vaccine recipients died, one after the first dose and one after the second. The July update reversed that trend. Between November 2020 and March 2021, 13 vaccine recipients died, compared to only 10 placebo subjects."
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/more-people-died-in-the-key-clinical
Actually, you just need 1 example to refute a theory, but we have several. There is almost no surge in excess mortality in high % vax states like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, etc. If you remove the deaths *attributed* to Delta/covid, the SSA chart would essentially look flat. If a hypothesis was correct, it would be true all over the US.
"you just need 1 example to refute a theory" is definitely not true- even your favorite theory will have many exceptions, you know that. But much more importantly, "CDC data" is neither trustworthy nor scientifically sound. Randomized, double-blind clinical trials (a.k.a. "the gold standard in medical research") are infinitely superior, though obviously not perfect.
Is this what it's like to be retarded