US President Joe Biden speaks about his economic plan at LIUNA Training Center in DeForest, Wisconsin, on February 8, 2023. - (Photo by Mandel NGAN / AFP) (Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images)
Views: 18
Biden and the Undocumented taking American worker jobs. Joey boy was in Wisconsin talking about his job creation. Creation for who?
Data published in the New York Times shows that the Biden administration is aiding employers by adding millions of foreign workers to the labor force — ensuring wages stay stagnant — even as native-born Americans struggle to get back into jobs since the Chinese coronavirus pandemic.
“The foreign-born workforce grew much more quickly than the U.S.-born workforce, Labor Department figures show,” the Timesreports:
“When the unemployment rate goes down, you would normally expect wage inflation to go up, but that’s not what’s happening,” said Torsten Slok, chief economist at Apollo Global Management. “So there must be something else moving in the labor force, and there is a very likely explanation here that immigrants are coming in and taking jobs.” [Emphasis added]
But despite the resurgence in the foreign-born labor force — about four-fifths of it are people legally allowed to work in the United States, by one calculation — there are bottlenecks. [Emphasis added]
Chart via New York Times
“What the Democrats have never explained is … how working families are helped by flooding the labor market with cheap illegal labor,” Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) said last week during a congressional hearing.
Everyone has been doing a fact check on Biden’s comments Tuesday. I think that being Joe was telling one lie after another it should be called a lie check. So here goes.
Biden said, “In the ten years the ban was law, mass shootings went down. After we let it expire, in a Republican administration, mass shootings tripled.”
The new mass-shooting database shows that there were 31 mass shootings in the decade before the 1994 law, 31 in the 10 years the law was in force (Sept. 13, 1994 to Sept. 12, 2004) and 47 in the 10 years after it expired. As noted, some of that increase stems from population growth. Doesn’t look like it tripled to me.
President Joe Biden claimed during Tuesday’s State of the Union that the Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act put a monthly cap 0f $35 on insulin costs for Medicare enrollees.
VERDICT: Misleading. But former President Donald Trump’s administration actually struck a deal with insulin manufacturers and healthcare providers to drastically reduce the cost of insulin for American seniors who relied on Medicare during his presidency — and before Biden took office. The deal Trump’s administration made limited the co-pay for a month’s supply of the drug to $35, as Breitbart News reported at the time.
In the last two years, my administration has cut the deficit by more than $1.7 trillion – the largest deficit reduction in American history.
Dan White, senior director of economic research at Moody’s Analytics – an economics firm whose assessments Biden has repeatedly cited during his presidency – told CNN’s Matt Egan in October: “On net, the policies of the administration have increased the deficit, not reduced it.” The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an advocacy group, wrote in September that Biden’s actions will add more than $4.8 trillion to deficits from 2021 through 2031, or $2.5 trillion if you don’t count the American Rescue Plan pandemic relief bill of 2021.
Nearly 25% of the entire national debt, a debt that took 200 years to accumulate, was added by just one administration alone – the last one.
It’s important to note, though, that some of the increase in the debt during the Trump era was because of the trillions in emergency Covid-19 pandemic reliefspending that passed with bipartisan support. The national debt spiked in the first half of 2020 after increasing gradually during Trump’s first three years in office, and because of spending required by safety-net programs that were created by previous presidents. A significant amount of spending under any president is the result of decisions made by their predecessors.
Here at home, gas prices are down $1.50 since their peak.
As of the day of the State of the Union, the national average for a gallon of regular gas was $3.457, per data from the American Automobile Association. That was indeed down more than $1.50 from a record high of $5.016 in mid-June. But it was still up from a national average of $2.393 on Biden’s Inauguration Day in January 2021.
Biden claimed 12 million new jobs. Department of Labor statistics says 2.5 million. All the other jobs were layoffs that returned. Under Trump during the pandemic his last five months, 10 million workers returned. No one claimed those were new jobs. Another way to look at it.
Under Trump 22 million lost Jobs. Joe Biden claims he created 12 million jobs. So can you say 10 million jobs gone for good under Biden?
BY Steve Kirsch Founder, Vaccine Safety Research Foundation (vacsafety.org) Updated 1/31/23
If the CDC was honest, this is what their new ads should look like!
If the CDC was honest, this is what their new ads should look like!
Using a novel analysis technique, anyone can now prove that there is no longer any doubt that the vaccines are SHORTENING the lifespans of EVERYONE who takes them. They should be immediately stopped.
Update at 12pm PST 1/31/23
This critique is convincing, but wrong. If everyone was last vaccinated just 10 days before the end of 2022, it would still be a .5 ratio if the vaccines were perfectly safe because the death rate in the final 10 days would be spread evenly over time.
I realized I made an error in some of the formulas so I’m re-doing the numbers.
Also, because the unvaxxed transition to the vaccinated, there are fewer unvaccinated to die in later months so there will be fewer unvaccinated deaths which will skew the ratio for the vaccinated to be lower than .5.
I’m currently using the date of last vaccination as the starting point and I believe it may be more correct to use the date of first vaccination. Still mulling that over.
Executive summary
This is the most important article I have ever written in my life.
It shows a novel method that anyone can use to prove that the COVID vaccines are leading to premature death in anyone who takes them, no matter what age. So you don’t have to believe me. You can collect the data yourself and do the same analysis I did. It’s very easy. It took me about an hour to collect the data and analyze it.
The methodology is both technically sound and objective. Anyone can collect their own data including any state in the US and many foreign governments. I predict no one will look. That tells you everything you need to know.
I asked UK Professor Norman Fenton to critique the method I used here. More about him in the text below. Bottom line: he loved the method I used (which he hadn’t seen before), he validated the calculations in the figure below, and he wasn’t aware of any way the conclusion could be legitimately challenged. There are always all sorts of hand-waving arguments such as “your study wasn’t IRB approved” or “your study is unethical because you are looking at deaths from the COVID vaccine” but they are just that: hand-waving.
To further prove my article cannot be challenged, I am pioneering a unique approach to that as well that is fair, thorough, and transparent. I’m publicly offering 10X your wager to anyone who believes that the data actually shows the opposite of what I claimed. See details of the offer in the text below. If you think I got it wrong, you can turn $25K into $250K in days!
This article describes how a simple objective analysis of objective death data (age, date died, date of last COVID vaccination) can be used to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the COVID vaccines are shortening lifespans and should be immediately halted.
This explains why all the world’s health authorities are keeping their data secret; their data would reveal that all world governments have been killing millions of people worldwide. No government wants that disclosed. They won’t debate me on this. They will try to censor this article because they can’t hide from the truth. Or they will try to create FUD by arguing the survey is biased without describing the bias.
I predict that this article will be ignored by the mainstream press and the medical community. The longer they ignore me, the worse it will look for them. The first rule of holes is that when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Unless there is a serious error in my methodology or someone can explain precisely how surveying “my followers” creates a biased sample that shifts the numbers for the vaccinated or shows us a more comprehensive, trustable data set, the game is now over.
If the vaccines are safe, the CDC should have produced this analysis using statewide data long ago. It is trivial to do. Why didn’t they? The answer is simple: because they know it would blow the narrative and prove to the world that they are incompetent fools.
If you want to prove me wrong, let’s get the statewide data from all states and make it public. All we need is Age, date of death, date of last COVID vaccine. That does not violate HIPAA or a dead person’s privacy because there is no PII.
But states will refuse to release that data because they know if they did, they are finished.
So in the meantime, they will say, “Your survey is biased.” But nobody can explain the “bias” that explains the result because my readers DO NOT CONTROL THE DATE THAT THEIR FRIENDS WERE VACCINATED, their age, or the DATE they died.
My readers may be more affluent than the average American so that’s a bias. But if the vaccine is killing affluent people, we have a problem. My readers might be more intelligent than the average American, so that’s a bias. They may have more intelligent friends. So this survey, it could be argued, just shows that intelligent people are being killed by the vaccine. That SHOULD be a stopping condition.
Or you could argue that my readers are less intelligent than the average person. And once again, unless you are trying to cull a society, that should be a stopping condition as unethical.
ANYONE CAN REPLICATE MY SURVEY if you think it is “biased.” The New York Times could replicate my survey and prove I’m wrong.
But they won’t.
And that tells you everything you need to know, doesn’t it?
If they want to argue with this article, THEY need to show us THEIR data and not engage in hand-waving arguments to create FUD that have no evidentiary basis.
The game is over. We have won. You cannot hide from the truth any longer.
We’ll see if anyone wants to challenge this article and get paid 10X their wager if they are right. Bring it on!
In this article, I show a clever new method for analyzing the death/vax records that is simple and objective; it relies on just a simple division of two time measurements.
The survey
A month ago, on December 25, 2022, I announced the survey below.
The survey asked people if they knew anyone who died in 2020, 2021, or 2022.
If they did know someone, simply report objective facts about the death: age, date died, and if vaccinated, the date most recently vaccinated.
If people knew >1 person who died in the period, just report the person whose details you are most familiar with (e.g., family member vs. friend).
As of January 29, 2023, I received 1,634 responses. The analysis here looks at the responses.
We only consider OBJECTIVE data and our analysis is OBJECTIVE. It’s all math.
If the vaccines are causing death, the analysis will pick it up.
Methodology
The analysis is done by looking at “days in category before death” divided by “days possible in category if you had lived to the end of the observation period.”
We do this for both vaxxed and unvaxxed people… across all ages, and also in various age ranges which I arbitrarily chose. You can choose your own if you don’t like the age categories I chose. It won’t change the result.
Here’s how the method works (credit to Clare Craig who suggested this wording):
Imagine a timeline for 2021 and 2022. For the unvaccinated we would expect an even distribution of deaths over time except for seasonal differences. For each person, we can compare how long they did live in that period with how long they could have lived. A few who died early would have lived for only a tiny fraction of their potential and a few that died late for a large fraction. However, most will be in between and the mean will be 0.5.
For the vaccinated, we start the clock on their date of their last vaccine. The timeline will therefore vary for each person but with a harmless vaccine we would still expect exactly the same distribution – a few early, a few late and most in the middle with a mean of 0.5.
If the vaccine killed people we would end up with more deaths early on. The mean ratio of life lived compared with life that could have been lived will fall below .5.
Given ratio=((time in category)/(time possible in category)) and knowing that the person died sometime in Jan 2021-Dec 2022, we have:
If the intervention (i.e., the vax) does nothing, ratio = .5
If the invention shortens life, ratio <.5
If the intervention increases lifespan, ratio > .5
It’s that simple. The important thing is that the ratio tells us if the intervention is helpful, neutral, or harmful.
The analysis is independent of the rates people die. The fact that older people die faster than younger people is immaterial. Pre-existing conditions, etc. do not matter.
There is an argument to be made that people who got vaccinated first were more vulnerable and were more likely to die, and thus the rate in a category changes over time, but that effect isn’t very large. I’ve run the numbers for those who died and were last vaccinated in 2022 and the numbers are all less than .5. You are welcome to prove me wrong, but you’ll need to do it with evidence, i.e., actual queries and not hand-waving arguments. Numbers talk.
To date, everyone who thinks they can debunk this has produced only handwaving arguments and no analysis.
Sorry, but that’s not very convincing.
Limitations
My survey includes reporters from all over the world, but all the readers speak English and 70% are in the US. The data can be analyzed just for the US and for specific vaccines as well, but below I include all the records to show that I’m not cherry picking and also to get more stability in the numbers (fewer data points creates more noise).
The people who answered are my followers and are most unvaccinated themselves. They are reporting deaths of the person they know the best, whether vaxxed or unvaxxed. I invite fact checkers to validate that people were true to the direction they were given. There are more vaccinated deaths reported simply because 75% of the US population is vaccinated.
The percentage of unvaccinated to total deaths was 29% (222/(222+542)).
So you might think “Ah ha! That proves that the unvaxxed are dying at a higher rate than the vaxxed because it should be only 25% of the deaths that should be vaccinated so this PROVES the vaccines are saving lives!”
No, it just proves that unvaccinated people hang around other unvaxxed people and are slightly more likely to report their deaths.
This is very helpful for our survey for two big reasons:
It gives us enough data in both the vaxxed and unvaxxed buckets so we can do meaningful comparisons between the two buckets
I can’t be accused of bias, e.g., you anti-vaxxers are just reporting vaccinated deaths to make the vax look bad. Clearly this isn’t the case… they are reporting disproportionately more unvaccinated deaths. So it looks very credible because it’s consistent with what you expect to see.
Note that the mix of vaxxed/unvaxxed deaths is immaterial to this analysis. Each cohort is examined independently. If I had 50% vaxxed and 50% unvaxxed deaths, the results would be exactly the same.
It’s important to note that my followers cannot determine the date of death of unvaccinated or vaccinated individuals (unless they have God-like powers). And I have contact info for all the records so they can be “spot checked” to validate that people followed my instructions to report the person they are most familiar with.
There is a recall bias in that people are more likely to report deaths that happened more recently. This shifts the average death time to the right. This is why unvaxxed are > .5 (more about that later).
For vaccinated people, there is also a healthy patient bias. If you are going to die in days due to a fatal cancer, most people would not get vaccinated.
There is some amount of seasonality in deaths that might skew things somewhat. It’s minimal for those <60, and small for the elderly. But we’re looking at a 2 year period so it shouldn’t be much different between vaxxed and unvaxxed.
Gaming
It wasn’t possible to game the survey because nobody, including myself, knew how I was going to analyze the data until after the data was collected.
There was one person who put in a bogus entry (record #260) but that was easily spotted and removed.
The analysis cut off time was before this article was written so anyone trying to pollute the data will be unsuccessful since any new records aren’t included in the analysis.
Transparency
The database has been in public view the entire time that the data has been gathered. When a record is submitted, it appears in the public view.
Verifications
No submissions were deleted (other than record 260 which was clearly gamed) or modified which can be verified by the changelog of the data. The database is hosted by a third party firm.
There is an “integrity check” field indicating which records passed simply sanity check such as date vaccinated < date died. Only those records were processed.
I have the contact information for each reporter. I am looking forward to being contacted by any mainstream “fact check” organization who is willing to be recorded on video as we discuss the article. I’m happy to supply contact info for any line(s) in the survey so the fact checker can verify every record is legitimate.
Expectations
People who die within 2021 to 2022 should be expected to die evenly throughout the period (there is some seasonality so it isn’t flat over the calendar months). Therefore, with no biases, we’d expect that the average days of life is 1 year in any 2 year observation period. So a ratio of .5. The seasonality cancels out.
But due to recall bias (since we are asking people to recall deaths rather than using government records), we’d expect the number to be skewed to dying more recently so maybe we’d see a ratio of .55 for the unvaccinated.
The vaccinated benefit from both recall bias and the healthy patient bias, so it might be .58 or more.
If the vaccines are safe and effective, the ratio of the vaccinated > ratio of the unvaccinated due to the healthy patient bias.
If the vaccines are killing people, the ratio of the vaccinated <= ratio of the unvaccinated (since the healthy patient bias would give the vaccinated an advantage).
If the vaccines are killing people, the ratio will be <0.5.
The ratio for the vaccinated is .31 or less for every age range with > 5 records.
For the unvaccinated, the ratios are .52 or better for every age range with >5 records
The data is remarkably consistent when there are enough records for the range (generally 10 or more records per the uV# or V # columns).
The values in red are unreliable due to a lack of sufficient data points.
Values in red have too few records to compute an accurate ratio. Ratios >.5 are expected for a safe intervention. Ratios <.5 mean something is killing these people prematurely.
For the unvaccinated, my Airtable filter looked like this and I used the unVaxxed days alive/days possible columns:
For the vaccinated, my Airtable filter looked like this and I used the Vaxxed days died/days available columns.
NOTE: The “Integrity check” is NOT complete. But when coupled with the restrictions of the two filtering conditions, invalid records are all filtered out of the final result.
inal result.
Is my analysis wrong?
This is an Occam’s razor analysis. You could get fancier but it wouldn’t change the result. The signal is very very strong that the vaccines should be immediately stopped.
If I have made a mistake, I’d be grateful to see the correct analysis of the data using the same methodology. So if you object, show us the proper analysis.
The data is remarkably consistent for each age range. But there is a huge difference between the vaxxed (.3) and the unvaxxed (.58). This is exactly what I expected to see; no surprises. But it’s IMPOSSIBLE for the blue-pilled medical community to explain how this could possibly happen if the vaccine is so safe since it was supposed to be the other way around.
A simple look at the Notes field confirms the role of the vaccine in these deaths. That’s subjective proof. It shows that the vaccines are not as safe as claimed.
As far as confidence intervals, the numbers are remarkably consistent so the confidence intervals appear to be small. I’ve asked Professor Fenton for the correct way to ascertain these. He’s thinking about it. I’ll update this when I hear back.
But there’s more confirmation…
Failure anecdotes » success anecdotes
Is this analysis consistent with reliable evidence? Yes.
As it turns out, it’s easy to find failure anecdotes for the COVID vaccines. The anecdotes we generally find show STRONG failures.
By contrast, it is nearly impossible to find a “success anecdote,” even a weak success. I always ask doctors who will talk to me and they’ve never mentioned a single success story. I do this constantly on Twitter Spaces in full public view and NONE of the DOCTORS will EVER be able to cite an example. In fact, I have not found any medical doctor who has ever been able to cite a single geriatric practice or nursing home where deaths dropped after the vaccines rolled out.
If the vaccines were saving lives, there should be THOUSANDS of “poster elderly” success stories, yet there are none. All the anecdotes are strongly negative. That’s simply impossible if the vaccines are saving “tens of millions of lives” as Neil deGrasse Tyson said on YouTube. When I called Neil to ask him for a success anecdote, he hung up the phone on me.
So we have a pretty good sense just from the failure to find a success that the vaccines are an utter disaster. We didn’t even need to do any numerical calculations!
Lots of things confirm our hypothesis:
Lack of success anecdotes, but failure anecdotes easy to find
People switch from pro- to anti- but not the reverse.
Nobody can explain the 15,000 excess deaths in VAERS for the COVID vaccines. It’s not there for other vaccines, the deaths are all consistent with vaccine deaths. What killed all these people if it wasn’t the vaccine?
Ed Dowd’s book “Cause Unknown” contains tons of data. Where is the document debunking everything in that book and showing the cause of all these deaths, especially the increase in child deaths happening right after the vaccines rolled out for kids.
What about the 770 safety signals in VAERS. Why didn’t the CDC tell anyone about any of those signals? They notified the public about the VSD signal for stroke and didn’t even mention that it also triggered in VAERS.
Geriatric practice: I finally found a large geriatric practice of 1,000 patients, 75% are over 65. Their normal death rate is 11 per year (the mean). In 2022, they had 39 deaths for the entire year. They attribute the 28 excess deaths to the vaccine. If it wasn’t the vaccine, someone needs to explain to us what is killing these people because whatever it is, it needs to be IMMEDIATELY stopped. They can’t go public for fear of retribution.
Savo Island Cooperative (Berkeley, CA): Roughly 150 people. No deaths for 5 years before COVID; 0 in 2020; 1 in 2021; 3 in 2022 and they were all vaccinated and boosted (plus 3 strokes and 4 heart attacks). Reported to me by Jane Stillwater last night at an event I spoke at. Nobody at the event could recall any success anecdotes.
Ed Dowd mentioned the vaccines have killed 800K Americans and disabled 4X as many as killed, 3.2M since the vaccine program began.
The peer-reviewed scientific literature published a paper by Mark Skidmore showing over 217,000 deaths in 2021 alone due to the COVID vaccine. But they are looking at retracting the paper because Mark didn’t include a full bio on one of the funders of the study. Also, he asked a question about deaths from the COVID vaccine and that’s unethical (COVID virus questions are OK and ethical).
Josh Stirling looked at how cities in the US did in 2022 vs. 2021. So it’s a longitudinal study where you compare the city with itself one year ago. This is the best way to see what is going on… did your mortality increase or decrease. Check this out: cities with higher vaccination had larger all-cause mortality increases than cities with lower vaccination rates. In other words, the line goes the “wrong way.” This is devastating for the narrative, but of course consistent with what the death reports are saying. The R2 doesn’t need to be .9 for this to be convincing. They are correlated and it’s the slope of the line that is significant. The slope is the wrong way. That’s the point.
US cities; all ages; compare 2022 vs. 2021 in the same city The line slopes up. In other words, the experts were completely wrong: the vaccines are deadly. This is very compelling proof of harm that is impossible for anyone to explain away with a straight face. When combined with this analysis, it’s not credible to keep claiming the vaccines are safe and effective.
NOTE: The summary and challenge to prove Steve Kirsh’s analysis wrong is at least as long as what is above. As of the 1/31 update, an error had been discovered and he is re-working against the same data. But he is still challenging Big Pharma and their deep state partners to prove his conclusions wrong and show how they got THEIR numbers.
Although the pandemic is behind us, Big Tech is still censoring health information from the public.
The video hosting company Vimeo recently deleted the channel of The Wellness Company.
The Wellness Company is a startup with a “Freedom From Pharma” program that provides access to doctors and pharmacies that aren’t afraid to provide treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (plus, Gateway Pundit benefits when you subscribe through this link or the links below).
In fact, it was a video on ivermectin that caused the deletion, according to The Wellness Company.
Chris Alexander of The Wellness Company said:
“Vimeo banned our account on the basis of an interview with Jen VanDeWater, a licensed pharmacist who runs our Freedom from Pharma program, about the safety and utility of Ivermectin.
“Vimeo has allowed pro-vaccination voices to post video after video that have been riddled with misinformation, disinformation and outright lies. Vimeo isn’t holding any of these people accountable and none of these accounts are being suspended or permanently banned.
“The actions of Vimeo are a reminder of why it is so important for conservatives and freedom loving Americans to build parallel systems. We can no longer rely on the compromised systems of the establishment – and that is exactly why we founded The Wellness Company.
“Nothing is more critical than healthcare and no system has been more exposed over the last three years than our healthcare system. Every American who cares about the truth and who cares about their health should join us!”
Ear infection concept. an inflammatory disease of the middle ear.
Views: 47
The hits just keep coming from these shots – is this the new definition of “safe and effective?”
By Dr. Peter A. McCullough Dec 20, 2022
Loss of hearing in the elderly is common affecting both the patient and the people around them trying to communicate.
I have noticed many of my vaccinated elderly patients developing progressive hearing loss. Nieminen et al have conducted an extensive hearing assessment of patients in Finland after COVID-19 vaccination and compared them to the unvaccinated. The data suggested each successive shot increased risk for hearing loss. However, the most important results are in the supplemental tables which demonstrate the elderly and those with risk factors for hearing loss are pushed over the edge by COVID-19 vaccination.
Nieminen TA, Kivekäs I, Artama M, Nohynek H, Kujansivu J, Hovi P. Sudden Hearing Loss Following Vaccination Against COVID-19. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. Published online December 15, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2022.4154
Their risk for sudden and substantial loss of hearing is more than double those who wisely deferred on the vaccines.
The Spike protein produced by the vaccines is a neurotoxin damaging nerves throughout the body and likely having more of an impact in nervous tissue which is already degenerated such as the auditory nerve. It is also possible the Spike protein incites inflammation leading to fibrosis in the tissue holding the stapes or stirrup which is a bone in the middle ear, the annular ligament, or the oval window all involved in the conduction of sound vibrations to the inner ear.
If you have an elderly person in your circle who has been vaccinated, check on their hearing and do not fall behind on progressive hearing loss which if unchecked, can lead to social withdrawal and insidious depression.
A major new autopsy report has found that three people who died unexpectedly at home with no pre-existing disease shortly after COVID vaccination were likely killed by the vaccine.
A further two deaths were found to be possibly due to the vaccine.
The report, published in Clinical Research in Cardiology, the official journal of the German Cardiac Society, detailed autopsies carried out at Heidelberg University Hospital in 2021. Led by Thomas Longerich and Peter Schirmacher, it found that in five deaths that occurred within a week of the first or second dose of vaccination with Pfizer or Moderna, inflammation of the heart tissue due to an autoimmune response triggered by the vaccine had likely or possibly caused the death.
Case characteristic of five deaths likely or possibly caused by the COVID vaccines.Lymphocyte immune cells (white blood cells) are shown in blue and brown among the heart tissue, causing localised inflammation that proved fatal.
In total the report looked at 35 autopsies carried out at the University of Heidelberg in people who died within 20 days of COVID vaccination, of which 10 were deemed on examination to be due to a pre-existing illness and not the vaccine. For the remaining 20, the report did not rule out the vaccine as a cause of death, which Dr. Schirmacher has confirmed to me is intentional as the autopsy results were inconclusive. Almost all of the remaining cases were of a cardiovascular cause, as indicated in the table below from the supplementary materials, where 21 of the 30 deaths are attributed to a cardiovascular cause. One of these is attributed to blood clots (VITT) from AstraZeneca vaccination (the report was looking specifically at post-vaccine myocarditis deaths), leaving 20 from other cardiovascular causes.
For the five deaths in the main report attributed as likely or possibly due to the vaccines, the authors state:
“All cases lacked significant coronary heart disease, acute or chronic manifestations of ischaemic heart disease, manifestations of cardiomyopathy or other signs of a pre-existing, clinically relevant heart disease.”
This indicates that the authors limited themselves to deaths where there was no “pre-existing, clinically relevant heart disease,” making the report very conservative in which deaths it was willing to pin on the vaccines.
Dr. Schirmacher told me:
“We included only cases, in which the constellation was unequivocally clear and no other cause of death was demonstrable despite all efforts. We cannot rule out vaccine effects in the other cases, but here we had an alternative potential cause of death (e.g., myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism). If there is severe ischemic cardiomyopathy it is almost impossible to rule out myocarditis effects or definitively rule in inflammatory alterations as due to vaccination. These cases were not included.
“We did not aim to include or find every case but the characteristics of definitive, unequivocal cases beyond any doubt. Only by this way you can establish the typical characteristics; otherwise less strict criteria may lead to ‘contamination’ of the collective; it is absolutely plausible that by these criteria we may have missed further cases but the intention of our study was never quantitative or extrapolation and there are numerous positive and negative bias. But we wanted to establish the fact not the size.”
It is of course very possible that the vaccines also cause death where there is an underlying cardiovascular condition, and indeed, that it is more likely to do so. Thus these five deaths are the minimum from these autopsy cases in which the vaccines are involved—those in which there is no other plausible explanation.
It is worth noting here that initially in 2021, when the autopsies were first carried out, Dr. Schirmacher stated that his team had concluded 30–40 percent of the deaths were due to the vaccines. These earlier estimates may give us a better indication of how many of the deaths the authors really think are attributable to the vaccines, when they are unconstrained by highly conservative assumptions (and looking at causes besides myocarditis). Note that these percentages are based on a selection of deaths that occurred shortly after vaccination, not a random sample of all deaths, so the authors rightly warn that no estimation of individual risk can be made from them.
Did the autopsies find spike protein from the vaccines present in the heart tissue? The samples from the five vaccine-attributed deaths were tested for infectious agents including SARS-CoV-2 (in one instance revealing “low viral copy numbers” of a herpes virus, which the authors deemed insufficient to explain the inflammation). However, no tests were done specifically for the virus spike protein or nucleocapsid protein, such as have been used successfully in otherautopsies to aid attribution to the vaccine, so unfortunately this evidence was unavailable for these autopsies.
The autopsies in the report also only cover doses 1 and 2, not any booster doses, and only deaths within 20 days of vaccination, so the report doesn’t address directly the question of what’s been causing the elevated heart deaths since the booster rollouts from autumn 2021 or whether the vaccines can trigger cardiovascular death weeks or months later. (Otherautopsieshave confirmed that the spike protein can persist in the body for weeks or months after vaccination and trigger a fatal autoimmune attack on the heart.)
What the report does do, however, is establish that people who die suddenly in the days immediately following vaccination may well have died from a vaccine-related autoimmune attack on the heart. It also confirms how deadly even mild vaccine-induced myocarditis can be—and thus why studies like the one from Thailand, found cardiovascular adverse effects in around a third of teenagers (29.2 percent) following Pfizer vaccination and subclinical heart inflammation in one in 43 (2.3 percent), and the study from Switzerland finding at least 2.8 percent with subclinical myocarditis and elevated troponin levels (indicating heart injury) across all vaccinated people, are so worrying.
The authors of the new study diplomatically write that the “reported incidence” of myocarditis after vaccination is “low” and the risks of hospitalization and death associated with COVID-19 are “stated to be greater than the recorded risk associated with COVID-19 vaccination”—notably declining to commit themselves to the official propositions that they dutifully repeat.
The fact that those who die suddenly after vaccination may have died from the hidden effects of the COVID vaccine on their heart is thus now firmly established in the medical literature. The big remaining question is how often it occurs.
Stop Press: Dr. John Campbell has produced a helpful overview of the report’s findings in his latest video.
Fauci will be the 2023 commencement speaker at Yale’s School of medicine.
Fauci on Trial: retiring bureaucrat suddenly ‘can’t recall’ anything. Surprised?
We’ve reported this before, but someone did the legwork and read his deposition related to the govt/big tech collusion to censor those who opposed the vaccine mandates. They found a (not so) astonishing 174 times Tony the Fauch said “I don’t recall” — including when asked about emails that he sent, interviews that he gave, and other important information. Considering the 80-year-old con man could be looking forward to spending the rest of his life in jail if the censorship case and any sequelae ever go to trial, is anyone surprised?
COVID-19 vaccine maker AstraZeneca has revealed it made four billion dollars in sales from its coronavirus jab last year
Sixth Circuit Appeals Court Upholds Air Force Personnel’s Relief From COVID Vaccine Mandate
The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court ruled unanimously to uphold a class action injunction protecting Air Force personnel who declined the COVID vaccine from punitive measures.
In the ruling, Judge Murphy wrote, “Under RFRA, the Air Force wrongly relied on its ‘broadly formulated’ reasons for the vaccine mandate to deny specific exemptions to the Plaintiffs, especially since it has granted secular exemptions to their colleagues. We thus may uphold the Plaintiffs’ injunction based on RFRA alone. The Air Force’s treatment of their exemption requests also reveals common questions for the class: Does the Air Force have a uniform policy of relying on its generalized interests in the vaccine mandate to deny religious exemptions regardless of a service member’s individual circumstances? And does it have a discriminatory policy of broadly denying religious exemptions but broadly granting secular ones? A district court can answer these questions in a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ fashion for the entire class. It can answer whether these alleged policies violate RFRA and the First Amendment in the same way. A ruling for the class also would permit uniform injunctive relief against the allegedly illegal policies. We affirm.”
Defense for Jabs Gone: Pandemic of the Vaccinated, Increased Likelihood of C19 Death
For the first time, a majority of Americans dying from the coronavirus received at least the primary series of the vaccine.
Fifty-eight percent of coronavirus deaths in August were people who were vaccinated or boosted, according to an analysis conducted for The Health 202 by Cynthia Cox, vice president at the Kaiser Family.
34% increase in Covid deaths in most vaxxed states vs least vaxxed.
We looked at the top ten most vaccinated states; they had an average uptake of 82%. And we looked at the bottom ten least vaccinated states, and [it] turns out there’s a 34% increase in deaths per 100,000 of COVID deaths in the top ten most vaccinated states.
Jeffrey Jaxen [of The Highwire]comments, “So there’s a data point that is actually really shocking, really should be alarming to a lot of people, really should be investigated.”
Agreed, Jeffrey. If the shots really were “safe and effective,” how is it possible that the top ten most vaccinated states are now seeing 34% MORE Covid-19 deaths than the top ten least vaccinated states? And why is it that programs like The Highwire and internet warriors that have to do CDC’s job for them? These things clearly aren’t working. There’s a negative efficacy signal, and nothing comes to chance when you compare ten states of data to another ten states. That’s essentially a mega meta-analysis.
The California media is finally reporting what common folks knew for two years. Unnecessary lock downs put the children behind. It’s apparent that California’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which included shuttering schools and forcing students into sporadic forms of on-line instruction, had the effect of widening the achievement gap. Not only did California kids score very low, vis-à-vis other states, in the most recent round of federal academic achievement tests, the National Assessment of Education Progress, but there were sharp differences in how individual school districts fared.
So how does the media say it can be fixed? California’s school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic widened the state’s “achievement gap” and addressing the crisis should be a major issue for the Legislature. They learned nothing.
Jeniffer Sey on speaking against COVID-19 school closures: I took this stance in defense of children Jennifer Sey reveals why she spoke up about opening schools during the COVID-19 pandemic on 'Tucker Carlson Today.'
A longtime Levi Strauss & Co. executive is revealing how she was allegedly pushed out of her high-profile role after speaking out against the COVID-19 school closures on Fox Nation’s “Tucker Carlson Today.”
Jennifer Sey, who spent nearly 23 years at Levi Strauss & Co. and described herself as a “lifelong liberal,” said she took her stance against school closure “in defense of children, which should have been a progressive value,” but soon realized it was not a welcome idea at the company.
“I kept my advocacy to schools because I knew all that other stuff was controversial, but I thought we could agree on kids,” Sey told Tucker Carlson. Her work included being vocal on social media, leading rallies and writing op-eds with data to back her point.
Advocates for keeping schools open during the pandemic were deemed racists and accused of wanting to “murder teachers,” Sey explained. Soon people were emailing the CEO and head of human resources and calling for boycotts of the company.
“The feedback was when you speak, you speak on behalf of the company and I said, but I don’t,” the former executive said as she recalled being told multiple times to cool it. “I’m just a mom. I mean, I know I have this big job, but I am not saying it as the Levi’s brand president. I am saying it as a public school mom in San Francisco.”
A critical turning point occurred after Sey moved her family to Denver and appeared on “The Ingraham Angle” to discuss opening America’s schools. While the company said there was nothing wrong with her commentary, Sey said she was also told she should not have spoken out on Fox News.
“In the fall of that year, I was told I could be the CEO if I just cool it in my advocacy,” the former brand president told “Tucker Carlson Today.” “Schools at this point had been open for a hot second, two weeks … They needed to do a background check, not just on me, but on my husband.”
Prior to the background check, the former executive told the company they would think her social media was a “gray area” and her inclinations were right. Due to her position being the “succession role,” she was not able to keep her job if she was not eligible for the next.
After being told there would be severance, she resigned publicly. While she never received her requested severance package, she believes it would have come with a non-disclosure agreement, despite company denial.
“I wanted to be able to talk about the terms of the separation because I wanted to be able to tell you the story… In addition to the children being harmed, this idea that we can’t hold different views and work together, like the idea that I couldn’t have this view and work in this company is so disturbing to me that I did not want to sign my right away to talk about that,” Sey argued. “I wouldn’t do it.”
Research from the Department of Education shows that math and reading scores declined more during the pandemic than they have in decades, according to a previous Fox News report. Tony Kinnett, the executive director of the heterodox education publication Chalkboard Review, told Fox News Digital that some children are coming back to school “several grade levels behind.”
Sey suggests reasonable conversations about school closures may have prevented their devastating effect on children.
The U.S. Department of Education building in Washington, D.C. (STEFANI REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images)
“I want it to be ok for us to talk to each other, to debate ideas,” Sey implored. “I really, in my heart of hearts, believe if we could have had a public conversation about the schools where people like me, invested parents, doctors… instead of us being vilified, we could have had a reasoned conservation, I think we would have gotten to the right answer much sooner.”
Fox Nation programs are viewable on-demand and from your mobile device app, but only for Fox Nation subscribers. Go to Fox Nation to start a free trial and watch the extensive library from your favorite Fox News personalities.
Fox News’ Yael Halon and Andrew Mark Miller contributed to this report.
How telling is it when even Moderna tells you that the new booster jab doesn’t work well against the latest virus. Now they released this vaccine without any human testing. But now that they’ve jabbed millions, and they say it’s not as effective.
Moderna’s updated COVID-19 vaccine booster performs worse against a virus variant that is becoming increasingly prevalent in the United States, the company announced on Nov. 14.But an analysis of approximately 40 participants using assays showed that that the titer levels triggered by the updated booster were 5-fold lower against BQ.1.1, the strain that is quickly becoming dominant in the United States, Moderna said in a press release.
163
See full article 
