The COVID vaccines worked in reverse making people more susceptible. Attempts to contact Santa Clara County Public Health Department for comment were totally ignored.
I have been urging people to do their own research. Make a list of close friends and family of whom you know the vaccine status. Of those, who contracted COVID and who did not? Compare. When our local independent theater sent out a questionnaire asking if they should require the vaccine, I suggested they ask each employee to carry out this exercise. The theater opened to all the next week.
Steve, questions I got when I sent your substack to someone I think is wicked smart… I gave him my take, but wanted to get your reasoning in case I’m missing something.. “ First, what was the scope of his FOIA request? It would be surprising to me if he specifically requested only data about cases from January 2022. It would also be surprising to me if he only got data from cases in January 2022, unless that was specifically the scope of his request. Assuming I'm not surprised, why is he only sharing his analysis of data from January 2022? Did they provide data from other months that he just threw out because they didn't fit his narrative? On the SCC website they have statistics on this data going back to 6/2021.”
I got record requests of county employees in Pima County after they fired my daughter from a lifeguard position in early 2022. At that time there was only 1 week between Aug 2021 and Jan 2022 that a higher percentage of unvaxxed got Covid. Every other week, it was higher in vaxxed. I contacted various people with this information, but they did nothing but double down on their mandate. When mandates in my state became illegal, the county (blue) refused to let up on their mandate until last moment possible meaning the pool in my town opened late because they didn’t have enough life guards.
Susceptibility and prevention are of course two different things It's a shame that there is no transparency and therefore open discussion wrt the vaccine. However such is a two edged sword and we also need to be careful wrt our accusations and analysis.
Too wit. I actually read the the safety study for Pfizer in JAMA. The study never said the vaccine would *prevent* COVID, only that it was effective in reducing serious life threatening effects and hospitalization. The medical establishment said/used the word prevention and the public assumed this new mRNA created vaccine was the same as we were used to previously and cause a prevention of disease occurrence/contraction. (And of course the JAMA safety study was not long enough to predict all the serious side effects we now are experiencing.)
That being said, one *could* still imagine a health department recommending the vaccine--even if it raised the odds of contacting the disease--if it concurrently lowered the odds of a severe outcome. Of course, that's a bit of a stretch given the (now known) nature and type of those who hold such high office in the medical field.
The really sad part of the graph shown is the overwhelming percentage of vaccinated in age cohorts where the disease--even if contracted--would have had little mortality or severity. Now all these cohorts must pay the price for their fear of COVID and faith in the medical establishment with a lifelong fear of possible future adverse effects of the unproven mRA technology, e.g., blood clots and turbo cancer.
I agree. It seems excess death is the only valid data out there. That's why I like Rancourt's work so much. He uses it exclusively. I think Steve's point here is the health authorities not following up on conclusions based on their own data (which at least they presumably trust) tells you they are either hiding those conclusions or are too incompetent to see them (however worthless they are as you point out). I think Steve could have been more precise in his wording. I still don't think those 2 numbers by themselves are sufficient to support his statement.
If you want to harm the global population, but not yourself or friends, you need to provide a reason for everyone to voluntarily accept that which will cause harm. A mild virus seems to have been chosen. The "cure" for the virus was a pharmaceutical product which you exempted yourself from taking. Tedros, the war criminal, is a classic example of someone who has not had a shot. Many get a shot after all the propaganda and many suffer illness subsequently. It's brilliant.
UKHSA weekly vaccine surveillance reports documented the same thing. The vaccinated had a case rate(per 100,000) that was multiples that of the UNvaccinated. It went to just over 5:1 at the time they stopped providing the data, week 13 2022.
STEVE NOT SUPRISED THAT THE JAB CAUSED ONE TO GET COVID 19. WHY QUITE SIMPLE THE JAB TOOK OUT ONES NATURAL IMMUNE SYSTEM SO ONE GETS INFECTED THEN SPREADS COVID 19. BIG PHARMA NEW ALL THAT FACT SO TO TRY TO COVER UP THE OBVIOUS FACT. FIRST THEY PUT ABOUT THE STORY THAT IS WAS THE UNJABBED WHO WERE SPREADING COVID 19. ANOTHER WAY THEY TRIED TO COVER UP THE UNJABBED DID NOT GET COVID AS NATURAL IMMUNITY STOPED IT. THEIR EVIL PLAN TO GET EVERYONE JABBED BY FORCE VISITING HOMES.. THEY ALSO WERE GOING TO ISSUE A JABBED CERTIFICATE SO THE AUTHORITIES WOULD KNOW WHO WAS UNJSBED.. EVEN THE MILITARY DOING IT WAS CONCIDERD. THIS WOULD CAUSE THE PROBLEM NOT TO SHOW UP AND COVID 19 WOULD BECOME RAMPANT. IT WAS THE UNJABBED THAT SAVED THE DAY AND SLOWED THE SPREAD.
I am not surprised. all my friends who have gotten the jab get covid repeatedly, I don't need a study to prove it to me, I see it with my own eyes and ear about it with my own ears.
"So the percentage of people who were diagnosed with COVID (98% or more) was higher than the percentage of people who got the vaccine (under 95%). In other words, the vaccine made you more likely to get COVID"
Does that statement make sense? What if the 98 who got Covid were made up of everybody who was unvaxxed (i.e., 5) and 93 of the 98 who were vaxxed? In that case, there would be a slightly higher chance of getting Covid if you were unvaxxed, right (i.e., 100% for unvaxxed and 94.9% for vaxxed)?
Steve, our media is corrupt. You can see it in the way they attack Trump and in the way they won’t touch the failure of the Covid vaccine with a 10 foot pole.
I have been urging people to do their own research. Make a list of close friends and family of whom you know the vaccine status. Of those, who contracted COVID and who did not? Compare. When our local independent theater sent out a questionnaire asking if they should require the vaccine, I suggested they ask each employee to carry out this exercise. The theater opened to all the next week.
Steve, questions I got when I sent your substack to someone I think is wicked smart… I gave him my take, but wanted to get your reasoning in case I’m missing something.. “ First, what was the scope of his FOIA request? It would be surprising to me if he specifically requested only data about cases from January 2022. It would also be surprising to me if he only got data from cases in January 2022, unless that was specifically the scope of his request. Assuming I'm not surprised, why is he only sharing his analysis of data from January 2022? Did they provide data from other months that he just threw out because they didn't fit his narrative? On the SCC website they have statistics on this data going back to 6/2021.”
Unsurprisingly, same pattern in New Zealand, Mr Kirsch: https://splendidmarvellous.substack.com/i/106842489/figure-fluctuation-in-case-numbers-by-vaccination-status
I got record requests of county employees in Pima County after they fired my daughter from a lifeguard position in early 2022. At that time there was only 1 week between Aug 2021 and Jan 2022 that a higher percentage of unvaxxed got Covid. Every other week, it was higher in vaxxed. I contacted various people with this information, but they did nothing but double down on their mandate. When mandates in my state became illegal, the county (blue) refused to let up on their mandate until last moment possible meaning the pool in my town opened late because they didn’t have enough life guards.
TAKE A SECOND TO MAIL A POSTCARD TO VAX TRUTH HERO REINER ROTTING IN NAZI PRISON TONIGHT….
https://jimychanga.substack.com/p/from-reiner
Susceptibility and prevention are of course two different things It's a shame that there is no transparency and therefore open discussion wrt the vaccine. However such is a two edged sword and we also need to be careful wrt our accusations and analysis.
Too wit. I actually read the the safety study for Pfizer in JAMA. The study never said the vaccine would *prevent* COVID, only that it was effective in reducing serious life threatening effects and hospitalization. The medical establishment said/used the word prevention and the public assumed this new mRNA created vaccine was the same as we were used to previously and cause a prevention of disease occurrence/contraction. (And of course the JAMA safety study was not long enough to predict all the serious side effects we now are experiencing.)
That being said, one *could* still imagine a health department recommending the vaccine--even if it raised the odds of contacting the disease--if it concurrently lowered the odds of a severe outcome. Of course, that's a bit of a stretch given the (now known) nature and type of those who hold such high office in the medical field.
The really sad part of the graph shown is the overwhelming percentage of vaccinated in age cohorts where the disease--even if contracted--would have had little mortality or severity. Now all these cohorts must pay the price for their fear of COVID and faith in the medical establishment with a lifelong fear of possible future adverse effects of the unproven mRA technology, e.g., blood clots and turbo cancer.
https://twitter.com/rnikoley/status/1772867225302774183
I agree. It seems excess death is the only valid data out there. That's why I like Rancourt's work so much. He uses it exclusively. I think Steve's point here is the health authorities not following up on conclusions based on their own data (which at least they presumably trust) tells you they are either hiding those conclusions or are too incompetent to see them (however worthless they are as you point out). I think Steve could have been more precise in his wording. I still don't think those 2 numbers by themselves are sufficient to support his statement.
Now understand how the fascist tookover Germany in 1930s
If you want to harm the global population, but not yourself or friends, you need to provide a reason for everyone to voluntarily accept that which will cause harm. A mild virus seems to have been chosen. The "cure" for the virus was a pharmaceutical product which you exempted yourself from taking. Tedros, the war criminal, is a classic example of someone who has not had a shot. Many get a shot after all the propaganda and many suffer illness subsequently. It's brilliant.
UKHSA weekly vaccine surveillance reports documented the same thing. The vaccinated had a case rate(per 100,000) that was multiples that of the UNvaccinated. It went to just over 5:1 at the time they stopped providing the data, week 13 2022.
STEVE NOT SUPRISED THAT THE JAB CAUSED ONE TO GET COVID 19. WHY QUITE SIMPLE THE JAB TOOK OUT ONES NATURAL IMMUNE SYSTEM SO ONE GETS INFECTED THEN SPREADS COVID 19. BIG PHARMA NEW ALL THAT FACT SO TO TRY TO COVER UP THE OBVIOUS FACT. FIRST THEY PUT ABOUT THE STORY THAT IS WAS THE UNJABBED WHO WERE SPREADING COVID 19. ANOTHER WAY THEY TRIED TO COVER UP THE UNJABBED DID NOT GET COVID AS NATURAL IMMUNITY STOPED IT. THEIR EVIL PLAN TO GET EVERYONE JABBED BY FORCE VISITING HOMES.. THEY ALSO WERE GOING TO ISSUE A JABBED CERTIFICATE SO THE AUTHORITIES WOULD KNOW WHO WAS UNJSBED.. EVEN THE MILITARY DOING IT WAS CONCIDERD. THIS WOULD CAUSE THE PROBLEM NOT TO SHOW UP AND COVID 19 WOULD BECOME RAMPANT. IT WAS THE UNJABBED THAT SAVED THE DAY AND SLOWED THE SPREAD.
I am not surprised. all my friends who have gotten the jab get covid repeatedly, I don't need a study to prove it to me, I see it with my own eyes and ear about it with my own ears.
"So the percentage of people who were diagnosed with COVID (98% or more) was higher than the percentage of people who got the vaccine (under 95%). In other words, the vaccine made you more likely to get COVID"
Does that statement make sense? What if the 98 who got Covid were made up of everybody who was unvaxxed (i.e., 5) and 93 of the 98 who were vaxxed? In that case, there would be a slightly higher chance of getting Covid if you were unvaxxed, right (i.e., 100% for unvaxxed and 94.9% for vaxxed)?
Steve, our media is corrupt. You can see it in the way they attack Trump and in the way they won’t touch the failure of the Covid vaccine with a 10 foot pole.
First you make an experimental bioweapon jab.
Then you make and release a bioterroristic pathogen.
In that order.