EXCLUSIVE: Stunning new data pulled from the Medicare database shows how each shot increases your risk of death
We can now see very clearly what is going on. Shot #1 bumps your risk of death by around 20%. Shot # 2 bumps it another 20%. Shot #3 bumps your risk another 10%.
I’m still gathering data from Medicare, but a consistent picture is emerging for Medicare participants under 80 years old:
Shot #1 increases your risk of death by around 20% with an exponential time constant of around 150 days.
Shot #2 increases your risk of death by an additional 20% with a time constant of around 100 days.
Shot #3 increases your risk of death by an additional 10% with a time constant of around 50 days.
Due to the limitations of the Medicare data (missing vaccination data on nearly half the records), it’s not clear whether the shots reduce your risk of death from COVID. We need data that the public health authorities refuse to provide. If the shots worked, they’d want to make this data public. Keeping the data under wraps suggests that the shots not only make you more likely to die from all causes, but they also make you more likely to die from COVID.
The data
Here’s the data. I’ll explain more in the next section.
About the data
This is Medicare death data for those under 80 years old pulled from all 50 states.
The graphs are deaths after vaccine shot #N by day. So an x-axis value of100 means you died 100 days after you got that shot # and the vertical axis is the count of deaths at that time distance from that shot number.
The charts count all people who were vaccinated with the specific shot number sometime in 2021.
The effects of COVID spikes are smoothed out here due to the time window of the vaccine shots being spread so there aren’t “peaks” due to COVID outbreaks.
Since most older people were given their first vaccines in Q1 of 2021, there is a small seasonal spike around 300 days after the shots because older people die more often in the winter. That spike may also be from the COVID death surge in Jan 2022.
My interpretation of the results
My interpretation of the data above is based not just on this data, but extensive analysis of the Medicare data that I’ve done that is not described here.
Here’s what I believe is happening:
In the first 20 days or so, we have a healthy vaccinee effect operating, i.e., they don’t inject people who they believe are about to die. That’s the big slope at the start with a short time constant of around 8 days. Death counts are also low because of a startup effect where if they inject you, and you are seriously injured, they’ll try to keep you alive before they give up and you’re officially dead. So after around 20 days, we’re at the “baseline” normal death rate.
The drug starts working on you making you more and more likely to die over time starting from when you are injected. For the first dose, it looks like a time constant of around 150 days with a final value of around 20% above baseline death rate (without the vaccine). For shot #2, it seems to be a shorter time constant (around 100 days), and an endpoint 20% higher. So for the two shots combined, you are raising your risk of death by around 40%. The third shot acts faster to raise your risk of dying, but the endpoint is only around 10% above your previous baseline. So after your third shot, if you are old, you’ve raised your risk of death by around 50%.
While these numbers seem impossibly high, consider that I know of a geriatric practice with 1,000 patients where the death rate was 11 deaths a year and in 2022, they had 39 deaths. They attribute all of the excess deaths to the vaccine. A funeral service in California that I recently talked to doubled his business in 2022. And many embalmers report 40% or more of their cases have these mystery clots. I know of a nursing home in Australia where the death rate went from 2% per year to over 20% in the 12 months after the vaccines rolled out. So I find it puzzling that the death numbers in the US appear to only be up by less than 20%.
The drop offs you see in the charts after 360 days is because the time window of the shots is 1 year and we only looked at deaths till the end of 2022. Thus, we simply run out of time. The graphs limit you to vaccination in 2021 meaning ONLY the first 365 days are going to be “flat.”
Pro-vaxers could argue these graphs by claiming, “Oh look, the vaccines save you from dying for a year and then they wear off.” I’ve explored that and it’s not true. COVID kills in waves and when we restrict the vax window we look at, we can see the COVID peaks on top of the graph. Whether or not those peaks might have been higher if the person wasn’t vaccinated is something we can see if we can get the full dataset of who was vaccinated and who wasn’t so we can compare the peaks of vaccinated people with the peaks of unvaccinated people. That will tell us if there is any benefit to the vaccines at all; I wouldn’t be surprised if the peaks are higher for the vaxxed than the unvaxxed.
Have you looked at the excess deaths in the US lately?
The fact that 2021 and 2022 were excess death years suggests our main intervention made things worse, not better. And the 2022 numbers are incomplete according to the CDC. This is very unusual for excess deaths to be up like this. Usually, when you have a year with excess deaths, it is followed by a year of deficit deaths due to the depletion effect. This suggests something is at work that is killing people and it is not COVID. Hmmmm… wonder what it could be???? Hmmmm… gotta think about that one.
Summary
The shots increase your risk of death with every shot you take. The COVID vaccines aren’t safe for anyone.
It remains troubling to me why the authorities don’t release the data so everyone can see what is going on.
The only reason for keeping people in the dark about the COVID death/vax data is if the numbers would make the medical medical community look inept for supporting the vaccination program.
Mark my words: they will not be able to keep hiding the data.
When the data is finally set free, the entire medical community will be discredited, along with Congress, the White House, the mainstream media, high tech companies that continue to censor doctors trying to spread the truth, public health officials all over the world, and numerous State leaders, lawmakers, companies, universities, and organizations that required these vaccines in order to participate in society or keep a job.
World leaders should be listening to the people they are censoring and ignoring the people they are listening to.
Side effects include a multitude of things the shot should NOT be doing.
How stupid are these people? Of course more vaccinated are dying. Maybe because the vaccine doesn’t work like they thought it would? Not so long ago I thought I explained this, but I guess there a few folks who don’t get it.
Some on the left have two things they always say. Sure we’re getting COVID, but it’s mild and we’re not being hospitalized. That worked for some until August of 2022. More vaccinated than unvaccinated were dying from COVID. And more vaccinated than unvaccinated were being hospitalized. So now what?
Not to worry. The new slogan went something like this. Sure more vaccinated are being hospitalized and dying because more are vaccinated than unvaccinated. Does that work?
So the WHO, CDC, and the FDA claimed that the vaccination would prevent the death and hospitalizations less a few rare cases. But when more vaccinated are dying, getting sick, and being hospitalized, how was the vaccine beneficial for those folks? Remember the first claim. Vaccinated protects you from dying and getting hospitalized.
Don’t even get me started on the side effects the vaccinated are having.
Adrian Monck served for over a decade as one of Klaus Schwab’s top deputies.
Adrian Monck, the managing editor and comms director of WEF, announced the news in a LinkedIn post. Monck oversaw the WEF’s notorious Young Global Leaders and Global Shapers programs, which Schwab infamously bragged had helped the outfit to “penetrate the cabinets” of foreign governments.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) and its benefactors continue to face major headwinds, as a global resistance has formed against the organization’s advocacy for a two-tiered feudalistic society. What was once a shadowy-by-design network has been forced into the mainstream spotlight, and the blowback to the WEF was on display for the world to see in its 2023 Davos conference.
The WEF’s extremist agenda, which advances tyrannical, anti-human narratives such as “The Great Reset” and “Build Back Better,” among others, met several unexpected challenges at Davos through independent and non-institutional media operations.
One Japanese journalist even got a few questions in with Schwab, who was incredibly displeased with this impromptu interview attempt.
我那覇真子 Masako Ganaha @ganaha_masako
I encountered Klaus Schwab! And here is what happened. He is afraid of our resistance! @ WEF Davos2023
In the United States, several Republican members of Congress even backed out of Davos after The Dossier reported on their planned participation in the confab.
The Dossier
Abandon Ship: Republicans in U.S. WEF delegation reverse course on Davos trip
Monday marked the first day of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) annual confab in Davos, and the U.S. congressional to the ruling class gathering was noticeably slimmer than advertised.
274 likes · 105 comments · Jordan Schachtel
At Davos 2023, Monck cut a free promo for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), to the expressed approval of the Chinese state media operations that were invited to the meeting.
Just weeks before its annual invite-only, closed-door gathering in Davos, Monck sought to mitigate the reputational damage to the WEF, churning out a series of articles claiming the outfit is the victim of “disinformation campaigns.”
In one such piece that was published in The Globe and Mail, Monck declares that “a Russian propaganda campaign” is to blame for people’s negative perception of the WEF.
“The intent was apparently to spread disinformation in a bid to stir far-right outrage about COVID-19 and perpetuate domestic extremism,” the retiring WEF comms chief rants. “The means was often via bots that would push far-right conspiracy theories to communities on boards such as 4chan.”
In calling for a global censorship and surveillance regime akin to the one installed by the Chinese government, Monck declared:
“The consequences of unabated misinformation are dangerous. Misinformation concerning COVID-19 and vaccines cost lives during the pandemic. The revelations around the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Hill riot reveal how false information about elections can threaten the foundations of democracy.”
Monck has not publicly revealed his plans for the future.
Davos Elites Cheer the Policies That Would Harm Those With the Least
By Chandre Dharma-wardana for Real Clear Markets
While eating caviar and sipping on fine wine, wealthy elites at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos hobnobbed with an assortment of academics, government leaders, and environmental activists to discuss their plans for a global transition in agricultural production. They all agreed that the conventional practices now feeding the world need to be scrapped and replaced by organic-style farming, which they claimed would help fight climate change and make food systems more secure.
They emphasized tying aid to the world’s 600 million smallholder farmers with efforts to “encourage” the adoption of organic methods, which they described with all the familiar buzzwords, such as “regenerative” and “sustainable. But the new fashion is “agroecology,” which not only prohibits modern pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, and GMOs, but discourages mechanization as well.
One wonders if these entitled leaders took a momentary pause in their deliberations to consider the ongoing suffering and starvation in Sri Lanka, where past president Gotabhaya Rajapaksa took this kind of advice and bought into the fantasy of becoming the world’s first “fully organic and toxin free” nation.
Amid cheers from Davos-type eco-extremists, Rajapaksa proudly announced his plans at the 2021 Glasgow Climate Summit. Almost overnight, he banned agrochemicals and forced growers to adopt organic farming and become “in sync” with nature.
Shortly after in July 2022, Rajapaksa fled for his life amid mass protests and chaos as agricultural output dropped by 40%. Even today, more than 43% of children under five suffer from malnutrition there.
The Davos elites trumpet organic agriculture as the way to end food insecurity, even though it yields 35% less food per acre on average and could not possibly sustain the current population, let alone the almost 10 billion predicted by 2050. Their Swiss experts admit, and researchers confirm, that it cannot be scaled-up to feed even half the current world population.
In fact, every sustainability goal touted in Davos would be undermined by a shift to organic. Being 35% less productive means 50% more land needed to grow the same amount of food. Massively increasing farmland means cutting down forests and destroying habitat. That would devastate biodiversity and produce 50% to 70% more greenhouse gasses (GHGs).
Organic promoters should admit that organic farmers use lots of pesticides. They’re just older, less-targeted pesticides like copper sulfate, which are broadly toxic to humans and wildlife and must be used in greater amounts because they’re less effective.
Just weeks before the WEF at this year’s Conference of the Parties, a.k.a. the UN Convention on Climate Change in Egypt (COP27) and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in Montreal (COP15), leaders were singing the same bad tune, calling for “regenerative agriculture,” “sustainable intensification” and the word on everyone’s lips: “agroecology.”
This cocktail of sustainability terms is just unsustainable peasant farming rebottled, and these efforts are the bastard children of policymakers infected with activist-fed misinformation.
It’s not just that more land is needed for organic. GHG emissions are increased because farmers must till (plow) fields or flood them to control weeds, rather than use modern herbicides. Replacing 100kg of synthetic fertilizer requires 2-3 tons of organic compost, and organic manures made from farm waste contain phyto-accumulated heavy-metal toxins from soils, promoting dangerous runoff.
Conventional agriculture tripled farmland productivity between 1948 and 2019. Globally, it boosted cereal production over 300%. Though the cognoscenti pretend otherwise, conventional agriculture has adopted many truly regenerative practices. In no-till agriculture, farmers use herbicides, like atrazine and glyphosate, to control weeds instead of machine tilling.
Yes, atrazine and glyphosate reduce erosion and create higher-quality soil. They also reduce CO2 emissions by 280,000 metric tons and save 588 million gallons of diesel annually—equivalent to the emissions of 1 million cars. And, no, these herbicides are not bad for people and the environment. Atrazine does not leach into groundwater, as Health Canada showed in response to EU’s atrazine ban; and glyphosate does not cause cancer, as evidenced by the world’s largest and longest health study.
The wealthy elites steering the WEF and COP could make progress toward their laudable goals if they base their policies on such demonstrable facts, rather than fashionable organic fantasies.
Replacing 100kg of synthetic fertilizer requires 2-3 tons of organic compost, and organic manures made from farm waste contain phyto-accumulated heavy-metal toxins
Yet the pseudo-ecology haunting COP27, COP15, Davos and the EU channels the planet’s food security, biodiversity, and GHG mitigation efforts toward disaster, as Sri Lanka could attest.
So these leaders fly home on their greenhouse-gas-emitting jets, unaware or uncaring about the human and environmental damage their policies are promoting.
Now we know why there’s a HIGHWAY to HELL but only a STAIRWAY to HEAVEN.
Side effects include a multitude of things the shot should NOT be doing.
That means that over 40 million women in the United States have had their menstrual cycles affected by the C19 jab.
Project Veritas released another breaking story last night (Feb. 2) featuring Pfizer executive Jordan Trishton Walker. This time, he was caught on camera openly admitting concern about women’s cycles and their fertility. As a result, #Pfertility is trending on Twitter.
In light of Project Veritas’ latest bombshell, we have compiled an array of respected voices speaking out about menstrual and fertility concerns. Doctors, scientists, thought leaders, and women across the globe have been screaming from the rooftops on this subject for years now.
(In the interest of brevity, I’ll just post the videos from Vigalent Fox [there are quite a few]. The full article, with Twitter comments, can be found HERE , Some may be out of order —TPR)
Basically, Pfizer knew that there would be problems, they knew that lipid nanoparticles such as in the clot shot accumulated in the ovaries, and Bill Gates (bless his heart) was studying ways to interfere with reproduction.
This was how Pfizer decided to combat this. If the person on the video wasn’t a employee, why hasn’t Pfizer said so? And if he never was, will Pfizer sue him? If this turns out that this was a set up, I’ll print a retraction.
Project Veritas, a conservative activist group known for spreading misinformation, recently published a concealed-camera videoopens in a new tab or window allegedly showing a Pfizer employee describing the company’s COVID-19 vaccine research efforts.
As described by Project Veritas, the video features “Jordon Trishton Walker, Pfizer Director of Research and Development – Strategic Operations and mRNA Scientific Planning,” sharing details about Pfizer’s plans for conducting gain-of-function SARS-CoV-2 research.
In the heavily edited clip, the so-called employee can be heard telling the Project Veritas reporter out of the camera frame “don’t tell anyone this, by the way” before outlining seemingly theoretical conversations being had at Pfizer.
Project Veritas, a conservative activist group known for spreading misinformation, recently published a concealed-camera videoopens in a new tab or window allegedly showing a Pfizer employee describing the company’s COVID-19 vaccine research efforts.
As described by Project Veritas, the video features “Jordon Trishton Walker, Pfizer Director of Research and Development – Strategic Operations and mRNA Scientific Planning,” sharing details about Pfizer’s plans for conducting gain-of-function SARS-CoV-2 research.
In the heavily edited clip, the so-called employee can be heard telling the Project Veritas reporter out of the camera frame “don’t tell anyone this, by the way” before outlining seemingly theoretical conversations being had at Pfizer.
“You know how the virus keeps mutating?” Walker asks in the video. “Well one of the things we’re exploring is, like, why don’t we just mutate it ourselves so … we could create preemptively developed new vaccines, right?”
It is currently unclear if the man in the video is actually an employee of Pfizer, and if that is his real name.
Pfizer released a statementopens in a new tab or window on Friday summarily debunking the claims made in the video, noting that the company “has not conducted gain of function or directed evolution research” related to its “ongoing development of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.”
The company further explained that it has “conducted research where the original SARS-CoV-2 virus has been used to express the spike protein from new variants of concern,” after these new variants have been properly identified by public health authorities, and is used to “rapidly assess the ability of an existing vaccine to induce antibodies that neutralize a newly identified variant of concern.”
Pfizer noted that this research is made public when it is published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and is used “as one of the steps to determine whether a vaccine update is required.”
In an interview with MedPage Today, Paul Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, explained the primary concerns with gain-of-function research and why Pfizer’s research efforts are not attempting to produce these kinds of results.
“Usually, when people talk about gaining function, they’re talking about making it so that the virus is either more deadly or more easily transmitted or that it now can jump species,” Offit said.
He noted that this kind of research is tightly regulatedopens in a new tab or window in the U.S., and that regulations against gain-of-function research were the result of one well-documented studyopens in a new tab or window that was conducted several years ago at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. In the study, researchers were working with a strain of avian influenza that only reproduced in birds, which was intentionally modified to be reproducible in mammals, specifically in ferrets.
Offit emphasized that unlike the ferret study, Pfizer has been working with an mRNA platform that is coded for coronavirus spike proteins, not a whole virus. Furthermore, Pfizer is only working on one of four possible spike proteins on this particular virus, he added, noting that even if the company was working with all four proteins, it would still not be enough to accomplish gain-of-function results.
“You have a whole virus, which is then modified to become either more contagious or more deadly, but you have to start with a whole virus,” he said.
“If there was some evil hand back there that was trying to make the virus more immune-evasive or more contagious, that would be considered gain-of-function research, but it’s not happening,” he added. “The evil hand is mother nature.”
Overall, the work that has gone into developing a vaccine for COVID has been “remarkably effective,” he said. The reality was that researchers were able to sequence SARS-CoV-2 in a matter of months, conduct two large clinical trials using a technology that had never been used to make a vaccine, and achieved an effectiveness against severe disease that was much greater than expected.
The statement below is very scary.
“This is the best medical achievement in my lifetime,” he said. “And my lifetime includes the development of the polio vaccine.”
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!”
Dr. Anthony Fauci, pictured May 17 during a Senate subcommittee hearing, became a hated figure on the right in part because of what he represented—the arrogant, corrupt, and often incompetent bureaucratic managerial class that believes it has a right to make decisions for our society. (Photo: Shawn Thew-Pool/Getty Images)
Warning: Uninitialized string offset 0 in /srv/disk2/3394135/www/mastercreator.atwebpages.com/wp-content/plugins/fv-wordpress-flowplayer/models/flowplayer.php on line 2387
Fauci will be the 2023 commencement speaker at Yale’s School of medicine
By Jordan Schachtel
We’ve been bamboozled.
Despite claiming to have retired at the end of last year, Dr. Anthony Fauci remains on staff in the Government Health bureaucracy at the NIH and maintains his status as the highest-paid bureaucrat in the federal government. Additionally, Fauci has secured an indefinite taxpayer-funded security detail, The Dossier has confirmed.
Fauci remains on staff at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) so that he maintains eligibility for a taxpayer-funded U.S. Marshals detail, which involves more than half a dozen agents on a full-time detail.
In August of 2022, Fauci wrote that he would be “stepping down” from his position in December in order to “pursue the next chapter of my career.” It remains unclear what Fauci’s new role is at the NIH. All we know is that he no longer leads the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). That position is now held by Hugh Auchincloss, Fauci’s longtime deputy. Auchincloss is a walking conflict of interest. His daughter is a Big Pharma executive, and his son is a U.S. congressman.
In a recent “exit interview” with the corporate press, Fauci claimed to have received endless “death threats,” thereby justifying his around-the-clock taxpayer-funded security detail. However, this privilege is unique to Fauci, as it is not even afforded to most cabinet secretaries.
Fauci’s newfound status was first reported by Dr Marty Makary at Johns Hopkins University.
Once source close to the matter told me that the White House made the decision to keep Dr. Fauci employed by the government in order to keep his security detail of U.S. Marshals. The former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has received death threats, including one that was believed to be an intercepted plot to harm him.
He continues:
Some staff at NIH are simply frustrated by the idea that the 82-year-old former NIAID director is part of an inside network of legacy government players that are ‘taken care of’ by each other. If Dr. Fauci is still “on the books” it would be in line with a pattern of older NIH scientists being shuffled around government at the end of their career.
When reached by The Dossier, both the U.S. Marshals and the NIH refused to confirm or deny the fact that Fauci remains on the government payroll. However, The Dossier has independently confirmed that Fauci receives a security detail at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer, which confirms that he remains on the NIH roster. Though his duties are unclear, Fauci remains classified as an “employee” in the NIH directory.
A full time protective detail is billed at over $1 million per month, according to previous reporting on U.S. Marshals security costs. A large team of U.S. Marshals special agents have been detailed to Fauci for almost three years, meaning that he has incurred tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded security costs.
It’s not as if Dr Fauci can’t afford private security from time to time. He has become a very wealthy man over the course of his time in government.
The government bureaucrat’s net worth soared especially during the Covid hysteria era. Via Open The Books, he disclosed a net worth increase from $7.6 million on January 1, 2019, to over $12.6 million on December 31, 2021.
In his post, Dr Makary explains that Fauci’s situation is not an aberration, but the norm, as the NIH acts as a good ol’ boys network for recently “retired” officials, setting up longtime officials with no-show jobs:
NIAID’s most recent chief of viral diseases, 85-year-old Dr. Bernard Moss, who just stepped down from his leadership role, still works at the agency. And Dr. John E. Bennett, who will turn 90 this year, also still works at NIAID as an infectious disease scientist.
Last year, Dr. Francis Collins (age 72) stepped down from his role as NIH director and soon after was named co-head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Dr. Collins is also still working in a lab at the NIH after serving as director of the agency for 12 years.
Here’s the piece, originally published in the Wall Street Journal online yesterday and in the print edition today.
Newly released documents show that the White House has played a major role in censoring Americans on social media.Email exchanges between Rob Flaherty, the White House’s director of digital media, and social-media executives prove the companies put Covid censorship policies in place in response to relentless, coercive pressure from the White House—not voluntarily. The emails emerged Jan. 6 in the discovery phase of Missouri v. Biden, a free-speech case brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana and four private plaintiffs represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance.
On March 14, 2021, Mr. Flaherty emailed a Facebook executive (whose name we’ve redacted as a courtesy) with the subject line “You are hiding the ball” and a link to a Washington Post article about Facebook’s own research into “the spread of ideas that contribute to vaccine hesitancy,” as the paper put it. “I think there is a misunderstanding,” the executive wrote back. “I don’t think this is a misunderstanding,” Mr. Flaherty replied. “We are gravely concerned that your service is one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancy—period. . . . We want to know that you’re trying, we want to know how we can help, and we want to know that you’re not playing a shell game. . . . This would all be a lot easier if you would just be straight with us.”
On March 21, after failing to placate Mr. Flaherty, the Facebook executive sent an email detailing the company’s planned policy changes. They included “removing vaccine misinformation” and “reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation.” Facebook characterized this material as “often-true content” that “can be framed as sensation, alarmist, or shocking.” Facebook pledged to “remove these Groups, Pages, and Accounts when they are disproportionately promoting this sensationalized content.”
In that exchange, Mr. Flaherty demanded to know what Facebook was doing to “limit the spread of viral content” on WhatsApp, a private message app, especially “given its reach in immigrant communities and communities of color.” The company responded three weeks later with a lengthy list of promises.
On April 9, Mr. Flaherty asked “what actions and changes you’re making to ensure . . . you’re not making our country’s vaccine hesitancy problem worse.” He faulted the company for insufficient zeal in earlier efforts to control political speech: “In the electoral context, you tested and deployed an algorithmic shift that promoted quality news and information about the election. . . . You only did this, however, after an election that you helped increase skepticism in, and an insurrection which was plotted, in large part, by your platform. And then you turned it back off. I want some assurances, based in data, that you are not doing the same thing again here.” The executive’s response: “Understood.”
On April 14, Mr. Flaherty pressed the executive about why “the top post about vaccines today” is Tucker Carlson “saying they don’t work”: “I want to know what ‘Reduction’ actually looks like,” he said. The exec responded: “Running this down now.”
On April 23, Mr. Flaherty sent the executive an internal memo that he claimed had been circulating in the White House. It asserts that “Facebook plays a major role in the spread of COVID vaccine misinformation” and accuses the company of, among other things, “failure to monitor events hosting anti-vaccine and COVID disinformation” and “directing attention to COVID-skeptics/anti-vaccine ‘trusted’ messengers.”
On May 10, the executive sent Mr. Flaherty a list of steps Facebook had taken “to increase vaccine acceptance.” Mr. Flaherty scoffed, “Hard to take any of this seriously when you’re actively promoting anti-vaccine pages in search,” and linked to an NBC reporter’s tweet. The executive wrote back: “Thanks Rob—both of the accounts featured in this tweet have been removed from Instagram entirely for breaking our policies.”
President Biden, press secretary Jen Psaki and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy later publicly vowed to hold the platforms accountable if they didn’t heighten censorship. On July 16, 2021, a reporter asked Mr. Biden his “message to platforms like Facebook.” He replied, “They’re killing people.” Mr. Biden later claimed he meant users, not platforms, were killing people. But the record shows Facebook itself was the target of the White House’s pressure campaign.
Mr. Flaherty also strong-armed Google in April 2021, accusing YouTube (which it owns) of “funneling” people into vaccine hesitancy. He said this concern was “shared at the highest (and I mean the highest) levels of the WH,” and required “more work to be done.” Mr. Flaherty demanded to know what further measures Google would take to remove disfavored content. An executive responded that the company was working to “address your concerns related to Covid-19 misinformation.”
These emails establish a clear pattern: Mr. Flaherty, representing the White House, expresses anger at the companies’ failure to censor Covid-related content to his satisfaction. The companies change their policies to address his demands. As a result, thousands of Americans were silenced for questioning government-approved Covid narratives. Two of the Missouri plaintiffs, Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, are epidemiologists whom multiple social-media platforms censored at the government’s behest for expressing views that were scientifically well-founded but diverged from the government line—for instance, that children and adults with natural immunity from prior infection don’t need Covid vaccines.
Emails made public through earlier lawsuits, Freedom of Information Act requests and Elon Musk’s release of the Twitter Files had already exposed a sprawling censorship regime involving the White House as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies. The government directed tech companies to remove certain types of material and even to censor specific posts and accounts. Again, these included truthful messages casting doubt on the efficacy of masks and challenging Covid-19 vaccine mandates.
The First Amendment bars government from engaging in viewpoint-based censorship. The state-action doctrine bars government from circumventing constitutional strictures by suborning private companies to accomplish forbidden ends indirectly.
Defenders of the government have fallen back on the claim that cooperation by the tech companies was voluntary, from which they conclude that the First Amendment isn’t implicated. The reasoning is dubious, but even if it were valid, the premise has now been proved false.
The Flaherty emails demonstrate that the federal government unlawfully coerced the companies in an effort to ensure that Americans would be exposed only to state-approved information about Covid-19. As a result of that unconstitutional state action, Americans were given the false impression of a scientific “consensus” on critically important issues around Covid-19. A reckoning for the government’s unlawful, deceptive and dangerous conduct is under way in court.
Ms. Younes, litigation counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, represents the private plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden. Dr. Kheriaty is a senior scholar at the Brownstone Institute, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and one of the plaintiffs.
So we have this shin dig called the Golden Globes and guess what? It may be the new thing with the booster vaccinated crowd. Get boosted and spread COVID. We have this from Movie Web.
Just days after presenting at Tuesday’s Golden Globes ceremony, Everything Everywhere All at Once star Jamie Lee Curtis shared that she tested positive for COVID-19.
Curtis took to social media to announce the results, posting a picture of three positive rapid antigen tests and sharing that she would be sitting out of some other upcoming award season events.
“F–k COVID! Sadly, this head cheerleader is not going to be at all the weekend festivities cheering on her friends and colleagues. Life on life’s terms,” the actress wrote in the accompanying caption.
“I’m glad that there are all these home tests available so that I didn’t go to the @americanfilminstitute lunch and spread my germs. I was SO looking forward to going to the @bafta tea and the @criticschoice awards as a nominee and member of a motley crew. I’m so proud of these people, and I look forward to cheering them on through my TV set. Stay safe out there people,” she added.
With hardly anyone in attendance wearing a mask and over 11,000 reported cases in Beverly Hills (where the ceremony took place), the Golden Globes had all the makings of a “super-spreader” event, and some say it’s only a matter of time before more stars fall ill—especially as stars return to the social award circuit.
“Hoping for the best for Jamie Lee Curtis after testing positive for COVID,” one user wrote. “I think it’s clear the Golden Globes will have been a super-spreader event, and I wonder how many people are going to travel to Sundance knowingly or unknowingly with it?”
Others called for a return to widespread masking and virtual or limited award events.
“Jamie Lee Curtis was at the very maskless #GoldenGlobes and I’m just BEGGING people to 1.) wear a f–king mask (correctly! and preferably a high quality one),” another user wrote. “And 2.) stop going to these big a– gatherings. Find/advocate for another way!”
See full article 
