Professor Morris has been trying to tell me that the COVID vaccines are safe and the reason the data shows that the vaccines are unsafe is due to confounders. I asked why it's always one way.
You asked Morris if he knew countries where Pfizer had at least 30% higher ASMR than Moderna.
But I don't even know any country except the Czech Republic which has all-cause ASMR data available by vaccine brand.
But earlier you posted this tweet about the Connecticut Medicare data: "This is in Connecticut only. Other states had completely the opposite numbers and it was statistically significant there as well." [https://x.com/stkirsch/status/1840121580405366903] So if you have Medicare data available for other US states, was there some state where Pfizer had at least 30% higher ASMR than Moderna?
i only had record level data for CT unfortunately.
but there are many other comparisons cited in my substack paper and these were from different sources and ALL of them had significantly higher values for moderna.
so the same confounders must be operating worldwide.
See the new section of the article right above the summary.
If you can explain why there are always big data signals in the SAME direction, you'll be a hero because nobody can figure it out!
In the Connecticut Medicare data when I calculated a normalized mortality rate from the day of the first dose up to July 2024, so that I calculated the baseline number of deaths by multiplying the number of person-days for each combination of age and ongoing month with the mortality rate in the general US population for the same combination of age and month, Pfizer got about 1.25 times higher total mortality than Moderna: sars2.net/connecticut.html#Moderna_Pfizer_ratio_by_month_of_vaccination_and_ongoing_month.
When I combined data for adverse event reports from Eudravigilance with data for vaccine doses administered from OWID, the ratio of reports per doses administered was about 1.6 times higher for Pfizer than Moderna in Italy: sars2.net/czech4.html#Adverse_event_reports_by_country_at_EudraVigilance.
I've added a new section on big data at the end of the article.
Great work on the CT data.
For dose 3, the MRR shifts from 1.44 to .6 in just 30 days. Explain how THAT happens.
confounders causing large differences don't suddenly shift like that in a month or 2 months. If you think they do, explain to me what happened.
It is much more likely that these differences are due to vaccine batch variability than anything else.
If you think it is due to preferential brand distribution, show me the evidence for that. All the health authorities said the brands were equal.
It is nearly impossible to have accidentally, by chance, to have created a 30% ASMR difference in the Czech data. The Z score is over 20 for populations sample sizes of 100,000 or more.
So walk us through your explanation that fits the Czech and CT data.
According to research, solar storms could potentially lead to an increase in heart-related deaths, with some studies suggesting a figure of up to 5,500 additional cardiovascular deaths per year during periods of high solar activity, primarily due to the disruption of Earth's magnetic field which can impact the body's natural rhythms and potentially affect heart function; however, more research is needed to fully understand this correlation.
Key points about this claim:
Mechanism:
Solar storms create geomagnetic disturbances that can disrupt the Earth's magnetic field, potentially impacting the body's circadian rhythm and autonomic nervous system, which can influence heart rate and blood pressure.
Study findings:
A Harvard University study linked days with increased solar storm activity to a higher number of heart disease deaths.
Important consideration:
While the research suggests a potential link, the exact impact of solar storms on heart health is still being studied and individual risk factors should be considered.
Since May of this year there seem to have been successively record-breaking solar flares, in May, August and October. To play the devil's advocate, could increased solar activity in the last few years of have been one of the confounding factors that caused excess cardiac mortality? Of course Professor Morris did not cite that as a cause, but if he had done a little more research perhaps he could have attempted it, unless it's too specific and therefore more easily refuted.
I am cath lab quality and since jab rolled out MI's have doubled. I also track AICD and that number has increased and the age of patients have gone down.
If confounders were a valid point and the desire to investigate all these would have already occurred but for one point…..the Govt and Big Pharma do not want the status of being vac be a part of any out in the open HHS/DOD totally transparent investigation where ALL experts could offer an opinion. At the top of that list has been the deaf ears and eyes of the Govt/CDC/NIH to any sort of forensic autopsy of those who pass on….particularity the young….this would have shown a keen eye and sensitivity to preventing bad things happening to us…but they did all to suppress such an investigation. If confounding issues were a concern why then desire ti HIDE for 75 yrs the Big Pharma vac info???
The sad thing is that Morris truly, passionately believes this. His mind, along with many academic scientists, has been completely perverted. Think this is a new phenomenon? Think again. I saw this all the time in grad school at MIT in the early 1970s.
Well a problem arises when said data is skewed by intentional revisionism. Did not a Mass Elec. engineer find out that many death certs were tweaked to reflect Covid mortality. So with intentional filing of false instruments on the state level, how could or woukd we trust any DATA? And if I were too it would be from Life Insurance companies
The Ninth Circuit Court EXPOSED THE TRUTH in a groundbreaking decision that will have profound legal ramifications for COVID-19 shots and beyond.
Here’s what you need to know:
The Ninth Circuit ruled that because the COVID shots do not stop the spread of disease, they cannot be classified as vaccines.
This means it was completely illegal for the US Government and its various tyrannical health agencies to force anyone to take these shots.
In October 2021, America’s Frontline Doctors and I sued Kaiser on behalf of 4,000 employees based on this argument. I clearly saw that these were experimental therapeutics that did not stop transmission - they were not vaccines as the word had been historically defined, and therefore our government had no legal standing to mandate them. We were the first to present this legal theory, and this pivotal ruling is a direct result of our work.
The Ninth Circuit's decision affirms my work, and the work of America’s Frontline Doctors!
Liability protection under U.S. law is granted only to valid vaccines. The CDC and pharmaceutical companies were fully aware of this critical distinction when they changed the definition of “vaccine” in 2021 to include mRNA shots.
This pivotal decision also reveals the lack of integrity of the CDC's actions and holds Big Pharma accountable for its attempt to manipulate legal protections.
The US Government and its corrupt health agencies mislead the public by altering definitions and pushing mandates that do not meet legal or health standards. This ruling challenges government overreach and represents a HUGE VICTORY for medical freedom.
Ultimately, this decision challenges Big Pharma's unlimited liability protection and may hold them responsible for producing dangerous COVID-19 treatments.
this ruling may fundamentally reshape national vaccine policies and prevent future un-constitutional mandates. Further, this opens the door for those who lost their jobs and livelihoods for refusing the injections to seek restitution.
Well. It is conceivable that first responders are far more likely to notice an increase in heart attacks, than a decrease. And far more likely to comment on it. And if Morris were taking you seriously, he might have thought about the matter long enough to come up with that explanation. I suspect his bread is not buttered on the "Take Steve Seriously" side. Nor is the gravy applied thereunto.
Nice try... You've come up with a feeble excuse, based only on assumption. Contrary to your assertion, people DO celebrate good news, in addition to complaining about the bad. You really think no responders would report a drop in heart attacks? It might be a smaller number, but would certainly be well above zero.
The data was fairly representative of the population when the vaccines rolled out, but then as more and more people dropped out of the cohort of the "perpetually vaccinated", either from death or from natural immunity, or just from common sense, this left only people in the 4x and 10x vaccinated who are basically demented with lots of comorbidities and in retirement homes or death victims of covid. Since the 3rd vaccination the data has been so confounded, that you basically cannot use it anymore, no matter how much you try to unconfound it. This is why it only goes in one direction, and there is low interest in that data. Like the VAERS data, although obviously striking, in the end you have nothing to compare it to, so there is little you can do with it.
Due to the "cheap trick" and such (a scheme to miscategorize vaccinated as unvaccinated for 14 days), vaccine data actually showed in the beginning that the vaccines protected by some 65% against ANY cause of mortality, such as traffic accidents or stabbing. So your perception that there are not success stories in the other direction is false. Flawed data had produced whatever success stories from the very beginning, and most scientists still remain oblivious of the fact.
The overall situation is and always has been, that the data hasn't been usable to begin with due to skews in one direction, and then as it aged it got skewed in the other direction. And no one really can tell fact from fiction. Nearly all the data is flawed like this.
This is why there are hardly any scientific papers that could produce some "ultimate verdict" on the vaccine harms. Basically all that has been done is based on oddball data or ultra-wide-angle or micro-angle approaches where you can't get some definitive number on harm X.
I mean thanks for trying, but this situation generally speaking is so complicated statistically that thousands of scientists worldwide all made the same retarded errors for years, you could argue decades even, and still no one understands it right. With all the mishaps in the data reporting and such at this point, it is hardly believable that someone from the outside can just come in, punch some numbers, and get a right figure.
I find it incredible that the establishment keep doubling down with their narrative that the jab is both safe and effective. There is so much evidence that show the opposite is true!
I recently found myself in the company of two people who informed me that they were Medical Journalists. I asked which publication they worked for and was told "A scientific journal backed by the pharmaceutical industry" but the actual title wasn't divulged. During what ostensibly was a light-hearted conversation about growing vegetables I slipped in the question "If you wrote anything critical of the Pharma industry would it impact negatively upon your career progression?" They looked at each other and replied hesitantly "Well, yes, it would." "Isn't that corruption?" I asked, and the reply surprised me..."The whole industry is corrupt really!" said with a shrug of the shoulders.
You asked Morris if he knew countries where Pfizer had at least 30% higher ASMR than Moderna.
But I don't even know any country except the Czech Republic which has all-cause ASMR data available by vaccine brand.
But earlier you posted this tweet about the Connecticut Medicare data: "This is in Connecticut only. Other states had completely the opposite numbers and it was statistically significant there as well." [https://x.com/stkirsch/status/1840121580405366903] So if you have Medicare data available for other US states, was there some state where Pfizer had at least 30% higher ASMR than Moderna?
i only had record level data for CT unfortunately.
but there are many other comparisons cited in my substack paper and these were from different sources and ALL of them had significantly higher values for moderna.
so the same confounders must be operating worldwide.
See the new section of the article right above the summary.
If you can explain why there are always big data signals in the SAME direction, you'll be a hero because nobody can figure it out!
In the Connecticut Medicare data when I calculated a normalized mortality rate from the day of the first dose up to July 2024, so that I calculated the baseline number of deaths by multiplying the number of person-days for each combination of age and ongoing month with the mortality rate in the general US population for the same combination of age and month, Pfizer got about 1.25 times higher total mortality than Moderna: sars2.net/connecticut.html#Moderna_Pfizer_ratio_by_month_of_vaccination_and_ongoing_month.
When I combined data for adverse event reports from Eudravigilance with data for vaccine doses administered from OWID, the ratio of reports per doses administered was about 1.6 times higher for Pfizer than Moderna in Italy: sars2.net/czech4.html#Adverse_event_reports_by_country_at_EudraVigilance.
When I calculated a ratio of deaths per reports in an old snapshot of VAERS data where the country codes of European countries had not been removed, out of countries with a large enough sample size, the ratio was much higher for Pfizer than Moderna in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Spain, and Sweden: sars2.net/czech4.html#Ratio_of_deaths_per_adverse_event_reports_in_VAERS_calculated_by_Hans_Joachim_Kremer.
I've added a new section on big data at the end of the article.
Great work on the CT data.
For dose 3, the MRR shifts from 1.44 to .6 in just 30 days. Explain how THAT happens.
confounders causing large differences don't suddenly shift like that in a month or 2 months. If you think they do, explain to me what happened.
It is much more likely that these differences are due to vaccine batch variability than anything else.
If you think it is due to preferential brand distribution, show me the evidence for that. All the health authorities said the brands were equal.
It is nearly impossible to have accidentally, by chance, to have created a 30% ASMR difference in the Czech data. The Z score is over 20 for populations sample sizes of 100,000 or more.
So walk us through your explanation that fits the Czech and CT data.
Google AI Overview:
According to research, solar storms could potentially lead to an increase in heart-related deaths, with some studies suggesting a figure of up to 5,500 additional cardiovascular deaths per year during periods of high solar activity, primarily due to the disruption of Earth's magnetic field which can impact the body's natural rhythms and potentially affect heart function; however, more research is needed to fully understand this correlation.
Key points about this claim:
Mechanism:
Solar storms create geomagnetic disturbances that can disrupt the Earth's magnetic field, potentially impacting the body's circadian rhythm and autonomic nervous system, which can influence heart rate and blood pressure.
Study findings:
A Harvard University study linked days with increased solar storm activity to a higher number of heart disease deaths.
Important consideration:
While the research suggests a potential link, the exact impact of solar storms on heart health is still being studied and individual risk factors should be considered.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2324402-solar-storms-may-cause-up-to-5500-heart-related-deaths-in-a-given-year/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since May of this year there seem to have been successively record-breaking solar flares, in May, August and October. To play the devil's advocate, could increased solar activity in the last few years of have been one of the confounding factors that caused excess cardiac mortality? Of course Professor Morris did not cite that as a cause, but if he had done a little more research perhaps he could have attempted it, unless it's too specific and therefore more easily refuted.
https://www.space.com/extreme-solar-storm-affects-auroras-power-grids-october-2024#xenforo-comments-68394
https://www.livescience.com/space/the-sun/monster-x-class-flare-launches-massive-solar-storm-towards-earth-and-could-trigger-auroras-this-weekend
https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/heliophysics/how-nasa-tracked-the-most-intense-solar-storm-in-decades/
Directionality is profoundly important in analysis. Degree of departure is important, yes, but directionality is profound.
Confounders were very busy in NZ and still are. https://shorturl.at/WVoEc
I reckon this doctors legal team could use your help Steve.
I am cath lab quality and since jab rolled out MI's have doubled. I also track AICD and that number has increased and the age of patients have gone down.
Buttt they ARE in the population data. In all cause mortality right.
If confounders were a valid point and the desire to investigate all these would have already occurred but for one point…..the Govt and Big Pharma do not want the status of being vac be a part of any out in the open HHS/DOD totally transparent investigation where ALL experts could offer an opinion. At the top of that list has been the deaf ears and eyes of the Govt/CDC/NIH to any sort of forensic autopsy of those who pass on….particularity the young….this would have shown a keen eye and sensitivity to preventing bad things happening to us…but they did all to suppress such an investigation. If confounding issues were a concern why then desire ti HIDE for 75 yrs the Big Pharma vac info???
Let’s remember the HIV/AIDS scam has been going on since the 1980s, and they r STILL LYING.
Also, the Tuskegee Experiment went on for 40 years.
They will not give up unless forced to.
Dismantle the entire health system. Abolish the CDC and FDA immediately. That should be on our priority list. These gotta go asap!
The sad thing is that Morris truly, passionately believes this. His mind, along with many academic scientists, has been completely perverted. Think this is a new phenomenon? Think again. I saw this all the time in grad school at MIT in the early 1970s.
Well a problem arises when said data is skewed by intentional revisionism. Did not a Mass Elec. engineer find out that many death certs were tweaked to reflect Covid mortality. So with intentional filing of false instruments on the state level, how could or woukd we trust any DATA? And if I were too it would be from Life Insurance companies
The Ninth Circuit Court EXPOSED THE TRUTH in a groundbreaking decision that will have profound legal ramifications for COVID-19 shots and beyond.
Here’s what you need to know:
The Ninth Circuit ruled that because the COVID shots do not stop the spread of disease, they cannot be classified as vaccines.
This means it was completely illegal for the US Government and its various tyrannical health agencies to force anyone to take these shots.
In October 2021, America’s Frontline Doctors and I sued Kaiser on behalf of 4,000 employees based on this argument. I clearly saw that these were experimental therapeutics that did not stop transmission - they were not vaccines as the word had been historically defined, and therefore our government had no legal standing to mandate them. We were the first to present this legal theory, and this pivotal ruling is a direct result of our work.
The Ninth Circuit's decision affirms my work, and the work of America’s Frontline Doctors!
Liability protection under U.S. law is granted only to valid vaccines. The CDC and pharmaceutical companies were fully aware of this critical distinction when they changed the definition of “vaccine” in 2021 to include mRNA shots.
This pivotal decision also reveals the lack of integrity of the CDC's actions and holds Big Pharma accountable for its attempt to manipulate legal protections.
The US Government and its corrupt health agencies mislead the public by altering definitions and pushing mandates that do not meet legal or health standards. This ruling challenges government overreach and represents a HUGE VICTORY for medical freedom.
Ultimately, this decision challenges Big Pharma's unlimited liability protection and may hold them responsible for producing dangerous COVID-19 treatments.
this ruling may fundamentally reshape national vaccine policies and prevent future un-constitutional mandates. Further, this opens the door for those who lost their jobs and livelihoods for refusing the injections to seek restitution.
Well. It is conceivable that first responders are far more likely to notice an increase in heart attacks, than a decrease. And far more likely to comment on it. And if Morris were taking you seriously, he might have thought about the matter long enough to come up with that explanation. I suspect his bread is not buttered on the "Take Steve Seriously" side. Nor is the gravy applied thereunto.
maybe, but you cannot find even one who noticed a decrease.
Nice try... You've come up with a feeble excuse, based only on assumption. Contrary to your assertion, people DO celebrate good news, in addition to complaining about the bad. You really think no responders would report a drop in heart attacks? It might be a smaller number, but would certainly be well above zero.
The data was fairly representative of the population when the vaccines rolled out, but then as more and more people dropped out of the cohort of the "perpetually vaccinated", either from death or from natural immunity, or just from common sense, this left only people in the 4x and 10x vaccinated who are basically demented with lots of comorbidities and in retirement homes or death victims of covid. Since the 3rd vaccination the data has been so confounded, that you basically cannot use it anymore, no matter how much you try to unconfound it. This is why it only goes in one direction, and there is low interest in that data. Like the VAERS data, although obviously striking, in the end you have nothing to compare it to, so there is little you can do with it.
Due to the "cheap trick" and such (a scheme to miscategorize vaccinated as unvaccinated for 14 days), vaccine data actually showed in the beginning that the vaccines protected by some 65% against ANY cause of mortality, such as traffic accidents or stabbing. So your perception that there are not success stories in the other direction is false. Flawed data had produced whatever success stories from the very beginning, and most scientists still remain oblivious of the fact.
The overall situation is and always has been, that the data hasn't been usable to begin with due to skews in one direction, and then as it aged it got skewed in the other direction. And no one really can tell fact from fiction. Nearly all the data is flawed like this.
This is why there are hardly any scientific papers that could produce some "ultimate verdict" on the vaccine harms. Basically all that has been done is based on oddball data or ultra-wide-angle or micro-angle approaches where you can't get some definitive number on harm X.
I mean thanks for trying, but this situation generally speaking is so complicated statistically that thousands of scientists worldwide all made the same retarded errors for years, you could argue decades even, and still no one understands it right. With all the mishaps in the data reporting and such at this point, it is hardly believable that someone from the outside can just come in, punch some numbers, and get a right figure.
I find it incredible that the establishment keep doubling down with their narrative that the jab is both safe and effective. There is so much evidence that show the opposite is true!
Well done, Steve.
I recently found myself in the company of two people who informed me that they were Medical Journalists. I asked which publication they worked for and was told "A scientific journal backed by the pharmaceutical industry" but the actual title wasn't divulged. During what ostensibly was a light-hearted conversation about growing vegetables I slipped in the question "If you wrote anything critical of the Pharma industry would it impact negatively upon your career progression?" They looked at each other and replied hesitantly "Well, yes, it would." "Isn't that corruption?" I asked, and the reply surprised me..."The whole industry is corrupt really!" said with a shrug of the shoulders.
Very sad response by the "Medical Journalists". They seem to have no discomfort working for a corrupt enterprise. Thanks for sharing your post.
my son is a paramedic & his experiences back up this post...
Funny how Morris refers to Kirsch as "King of the Anecdote."
This is blatant name-calling—a fallacious form of argumentation.
Morris then accuses Kirsch of stating a "logical fallacy" which Kirsch has not committted.
Undermining one's own authority is very bad for the complexion, "Professor" Morris.
Didn't they teach you that in college?