Month: May 2023

The Data is Clear: The More Vaccines You Give Your Child, the More Likely it is That They Will Develop Chronic Diseases Including Autism

By STEVE KIRSCH

Here’s a quick summary of my survey of the parents of 10,000 kids. The results agree with other studies that have been done. The medical community refuses to do these studies. Why not prove us wrong?

Executive summary

I surveyed the parents of 10,000 kids on a variety of common chronic health conditions.

For every single condition in my survey, vaccination raised the odds that the child would develop the condition; the more vaccines, the higher the risk.

My survey confirms the results of other research that has been done showing similar risk elevations for chronic neurological diseases (ND).

This is devastating for our kids. Vaccines are literally poisoning them. This is why the health authorities will never conduct such a study such as the ones I point out below.

In fact, in 2009, 10 members of Congress including Rand Paul, tried to pass a bill forcing NIH to do a study, but the bill never made it out of the first committee because they don’t want you to ever find out that they’ve been poisoning our kids for decades.

Anyone can replicate the study I did. It took me just 24 hours to run. I invite any mainstream “fact checker” in the world to validate the results; I have the contact info for all the parents.

If the CDC wants to resolve the question quickly, all they have to do is give Professor Brian Hooker access to the VSD and Medicaid databases. Why not do that? Don’t they want people to know the truth?

Finally, the most important thing is that none of the vaccines have been needed in America for the last 25 years. Pediatric clinics which eschew vaccines have uniformly better clinical outcomes than their peers who vaccinate in the same population of kids.

This is a long but very important article.

The results graphically

This graph was done by Matt Briggs, an independent statistician. It’s crystal clear: kids with more vaccines are more likely to suffer from chronic conditions.

Odds ratio for each condition

Here is the summary of the survey. The right column is the odd-ratio for kids getting the condition with 10-15 vaccines compared with kids with no vaccines or Vitamin K shots. So if you got 10-15 vaccines, you are 4.5X more likely to develop autism than an unvaccinated child.

And we know from other studies (pediatric clinics with thousands of unvaccinated kids), that when you eliminate vaccination and the use of Tylenol, the autism rates drop to near zero. So this result isn’t a surprise.

Here’s the table:

You can download the survey, the record-level data and the analysis.

These results shouldn’t be a surprise at all. They are similar to other studies comparing vaccinated with FULLY unvaccinated kids (see the next section).

The bottom line: Kids with more vaccines are much more likely, not less likely, to have a large number of chronic neurological conditions.

For example, from the table above:

• ADHD: 7x
• Autoimmune disorders: 21x
• Autism: 5x
• Asthma: 9.3x
• Epilepsy: 4x
• Sinusitis: 33x

The largest signal was for sinusitis (33X more likely than fully unvaccinated); this basically is so rare in the fully unvaccinated that it causes the number to be high.

The vitamin K shot should always be refused

It is as devastating as giving your child a vaccine at birth as has been clearly pointed out in the Control Group study

In short, listening to your doctor was a huge mistake that your child will likely never recover from.

Check this out:

You shouldn’t be surprised by this; other studies found similar numbers

Here are other studies you should look at, all showing that the vaccines are significantly elevating the chance your child will get a chronic disease.

These are all published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. None of these studies have been retracted (even though Gorski would lie and claim they are retracted). I show the odds ratio for autism for comparison with my survey.

1. Hooker: 5.03
2. Mawson: 4.2
3. Control group: Infinite. “For those with zero exposures to post-birth vaccines, pre-birth vaccines, or the K shot, the total rate of autism in the entire CGS is 0% (0 of 1,024)”
4. Lyons-Weiler: The study was too small to assess autism risk, but showed better health outcomes among the unvaccinated than the vaccinated in other conditions. See this article which notes that the unvaccinated had better compliance to their wellness checks than the vaccinated which eliminates a common argument that anti-anti-vaxxers use. It says, “the unvaccinated families made their well-child visits with greater frequency than the vaccinated families.”

The Thomas study shows similar results. The study was unethically retracted by the journal over the objection of the authors, i.e., the journal didn’t follow the COPE guidelines. They said that “the conclusions were not supported by strong scientific data” which is NOT a valid reason to retract a study once it is published. The journal retracted the paper after an anonymous person claimed (without any evidence) that the results could be due to fewer office visits by the unvaxxed. The author provided evidence that this was not the case, but the journal ignored the evidence. Why? Because the paper got 250,000 views, it had to be retracted because it was counter-narrative and too popular. Later, a new paper showed proof that the reason the journal gave for retracting the paper was clearly false. The journal decided not to admit they were wrong and did not reverse the retraction of the Thomas paper. This is corruption of the highest magnitude. Please complain here using DOI:10.3390/ijerph17228674. The authors of that study would love to debate anyone on the ethics of this retraction. Any takers?

1. Paul Thomas: Showed generally consistent results overall. The study showed a RIOV of “developing autism” of 4.0 which dropped lower for more vaccines because kids are more likely to develop autism when they are younger and have had fewer vaccines.

Note: it’s possible that vaccines may be causing transgenderism, homosexuality, and many other conditions. I didn’t even think of that when I drafted the survey

Another Internet survey of 13,000 people showed a similar result, the unvaccinated were much better off in all areas measured in the survey (red bars always dramatically smaller):

We’ve even known about the link for nearly 100 years!!

The controls on my survey

There were controls to detect bias (birth defects, genetic disorders) which were not elevated proving that the survey was not biased. The OR for these conditions were both close to 1 exactly as we predicted.

The survey is analyzed using odds-ratios so the mix of vaxxed vs. unvaxxed is completely irrelevant.

So it doesn’t matter that 12% of the kids in my survey were unvaccinated. It simply means that I only had to survey 10,000 kids to get a decent comparison group; if others did their survey, they’d have to survey nearly 1M kids to find the same number of unvaccinated kids as I did. So I am able to do studies that are impractical for most other people to do.

The only way to attack my survey is to show that the parents all colluded and lied about their kids.

To defend against this attack, I have the contact info for each respondent and invite any fact checker to verify all the entries are accurate provided if you check, you have to publish the results.

The survey took 2 hours to write and was fully executed in 24 hours. The results were not shown to the public until after the survey was completed, making it impossible to game the results. All the data was collected on Airtable so that there would be a record of any data manipulation.

It is astonishing to me that none of the people who argue that vaccines don’t cause neurological diseases (ND) will do such a survey and show that the data I collected is inaccurate. Why won’t they do that?

Stopping the misinformation spreaders is easy! The CDC could have done this anytime in the last 25 years if they wanted to show people the truth.

Why won’t the CDC simply open up access to the VSD and CMS databases so we validate the results ourselves? Why hasn’t the CDC ever used VSD to do the same study? They’ve had 25 years to do that and never did. Why?

Are there any other studies?

We aren’t aware of any study, comparing the fully unvaccinated vs. partially or fully vaccinated kids that doesn’t have similar numbers.

When you read the peer-review literature carefully, you’ll find that they always consider the “unvaccinated” group to have kids without the particular vaccine under study.

So when they compare the MMR vaccine, they compare it to the kids who didn’t get the MMR vaccine. So it’s like comparing the autism rates of kids who got 28 vaccines with the rates of kids who got 27 vaccines. This is how they hide the signal. They design studies which are designed to fail.

Just because they don’t find a signal, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t there. It just means their study design didn’t find the signal.

They will NEVER compare the chronic disease rates in kids who got all recommended vaccines (well over 50 shots, many with multiple vaccines) vs. completely unvaccinated kids. It simply has never happened.

The excuse that unvaccinated kids are too hard to find is ridiculous. The Amish have thousands of such kids and there are hundreds of such kids that can be located in a heartbeat. All they have to do is call me and I’ll be happy to help.

A new study will be coming out soon

There is another study with around 50,000 kids that was done. It’s not published yet, but the results confirm the studies that were done above: the more you vaccinate kids the greater the difference in chronic diseases vs. the unvaccinated.

The medical journals will likely reject the study because it goes against the narrative. The study was done by a well known researcher.

Do vaccines cause autism?

Yes. More on that in an upcoming article. If you remove the vaccines and Tylenol, the rates of autism drop to near zero.

The 2007 Generation Rescue survey

In 2007, Generation Rescue (GR), an organization that is trying to alert Americans that vaccines cause autism, hired a third party polling firm (SurveyUSA) and paid them $200,000 to do a survey. The advantage to using a third party to do the survey is that GR cannot manipulate the results.

Like my survey, the GR survey found significant elevations for all diseases and conditions.

In the summary report, GR noted the following lack of interest by the CDC in doing any studies comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated kids:

No studies have ever been done to compare ND rates of children who received vaccines with those who received no vaccines, which is what our survey accomplished. Moreover, no studies have ever explored a link between vaccines and ADHD, despite the fact that 1 in 13 U.S. children have this diagnosis (versus 1 in 150 for autism).

…

The glaring absence of a study to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children for ND rates caused Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) to introduce this bill to compel the National Institutes of Health to do such a study.

Those statements are as true today as they were 16 years ago.

No public health authority has ever done such a survey. Ever.

I predict that such a survey will never be done because they don’t want the truth to be known.

Members of Congress tried to get a bill to force the NIH to do just **ONE** study. The bill was immediately killed in committee.

The bill, H.R.3069 — 111th Congress (2009-2010), was introduced on June 26, 2009 with 9 co-sponsors including Ron Paul. It never made it out of committee.

Here’s the summary:

Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), acting through the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to conduct a comprehensive study to: (1) compare total health outcomes, including the risk of autism, between vaccinated and unvaccinated U.S. populations; and (2) determine whether vaccines or vaccine components play a role in the development of autism spectrum or other neurological conditions.

The bill would have forced the NIH to do just ONE study.

Why would anyone be opposed to finding the truth?

The answer is simple: because our government simply does not want anyone to know the truth.

People would go nuts if they found out that the CDC has been harming our kids for decades with these vaccines and not telling anyone. It would destroy all faith in the mainstream press, the medical community, Congress, and US government agencies. So they killed the bill and there is no press about it. All silenced by the mainstream media.

Some people will gaslight you into believing that surveys are not “science.” That is false.

In fact, Professor Anders Hviid, an author of the highly cited Denmark study which claims that vaccines don’t cause autism, was so proud of his nationwide questionnaire study on COVID that was published in Nature that he pinned it to his Twitter profile; he’s the senior author on that study!

Professor Hviid then blocked everyone from viewing his tweets within 24 hours after I emailed him to ask him for his data.

If these surveys are all wrong, where are their surveys done by a reputable independent polling firm with no conflicts of interest showing the “correct” numbers?

The silence and lack of interest tells you everything.

In 2005, here’s what the CDC Director Judy Gerberding said about doing surveys comparing vaccinated vs. fully unvaccinated

Here’s what Judy Gerberding, the CDC Director said in 2005:

I think those kinds of studies could be done and should be done.

Let’s speed this up. Let’s look for the early studies that could give us at least some hypotheses to test and evaluate and get information flowing through the research pipeline as quickly as we can. So we are committed to doing that/

We think we will be able to provide more accurate information in the next year or so than we’ve been able to do up to this point. And I know that is our responsibility.

Guess what happened? They did nothing.

Why didn’t they just run exactly the same poll that Generation Rescue did in 2007? Just employ a different third party respected research firm to replicate their study and see if they get similar results. That would have been easy and a great start. Total cost: $200,000.

Instead they did nothing…. nothing!

It reminds me of Sgt Schultz:

Is the CDC hiding the data? Absolutely! Here’s proof.

If the CDC was honest and had nothing to hide, they would give researchers such as Professor Brian Hooker, James Lyons-Weiler, and other scientists who have published papers on autism in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, free, full, unfettered access to the VSD and Medicaid databases to do research.

But they won’t.

They never will.

Because hiding the data is critical.

And that tells you everything you need to know, doesn’t it?

A few other things you should know

Here’s my handy list of other things you should know:

1. Here is a complete list of necessary vaccines: <this space intentionally left blank>
2. Have you ever wondered why vaccines work so well? Check out the graphs here. You’ll find this most interesting.
3. None of the vaccines used in America today were ever tested against a true placebo (saline shot). This was noted in Turtles all the way down and has never been disproven.
4. There are no post-marketing studies of vaccine safety for any vaccine in America that prove the vaccines are safe. Only the states have the data and they aren’t sharing the data or doing the studies. See my article on data transparency for details and also my article “Is it safe?” for details on why that is.
5. Did you know CDC doesn’t have the vaccination record-level data for any vaccine from any state? So the CDC can’t know if the vaccines are safe. They could ask the states to provide these records, but they are too shy to ask the states for the data. I got this directly from the head of Media Relations at the CDC. I was floored.
6. The states aren’t doing the safety analysis either. When I contacted California State Epidemiologist Erica Pan, she ghosted me immediately after I asked her, “Do you believe in data transparency?”
7. None of the states make record-level public health data public. If they do that, we’d improve clinical outcomes. There’s no study showing keeping this data secret improves clinical outcomes. I believe that they keep this data hidden to cover the harms caused by vaccines. I’d love to be proven wrong. Simply open up the records.
8. A lot of people believe that vaccines have eliminated many diseases and are a net benefit to society. I’ve yet to see the proof of any of that today. While it “sounds” plausible, the risk benefits of each vaccine are dynamic and depend on the current morbidity and mortality of the disease relative to that of the vaccine. Where is the data on that? I haven’t seen it. Have you? There should be an on-going annual evaluation of risk vs. benefit for each vaccine. This has never been done. Why not let us into the VSD to make these assessments instead of blindly assuming vaccines have no risks?
9. If your child has autism, you can reverse it in some cases. Here’s what Scott Shoemaker did to cure his son. Unfortunately, doctors who know how to treat your child have to keep a low profile or they will have their license revoked. The medical community doesn’t want it known that autism can be reversed at all.

Original source: https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-data-is-clear-the-more-vaccines

COVID Vaccines Have Likely Caused Over 25,000 New Cases of Multiple Sclerosis (MS)

By STEVE KIRSCH

Since the media is hiding the causality evidence, I wanted to share this with you. Then ask yourself, why is the CDC remaining silent? Why can’t we have a dialog about the data?

Executive summary

Note: the link takes you to a “fact check” proving the abstract was on the WHO website because the WHO removed it after people noticed it.

What the paper didn’t say is how common this is or whether it is causal. It certainly looks causal, but causality requires more than just biological plausibility.

In this article, I’ll show you:

1. How you can estimate the number of cases (over 25,000)
2. How you can prove that all 5 causality criteria are satisfied

This also shows the CDC is corrupt that they are hiding this information. They could have easily done the same research I did and verified all five causality requirements were satisfied. Are you surprised they didn’t do this?

The observations (in VAERS and in the papers cited below) cannot be explained any other way.

If someone has a more plausible explanation for the 28X increase in reporting rates in VAERS, I’m all ears (for symptoms unrelated to the vaccine, reporting rates in the queries are comparable).

Multiple papers support the hypothesis that COVID vaccines cause MS

1. A rare presentation of undiagnosed multiple sclerosis after the COVID-19 vaccine
2. First manifestation of multiple sclerosis after immunization with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine
3. New diagnosis of multiple sclerosis in the setting of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine exposure
4. Multiple sclerosis relapse after COVID-19 vaccination: A case report-based systematic review
5. The new paper itself (which appears to be unfindable now), but see the Dr. Been video. Here’s a link to the webarchive version of the paper.

The Dr. Been video on the paper

Dr. Been did an excellent video on this paper (when it was still on the site) which everyone interested in this subject should watch because it explains the biological plausibility for how this happens.

Even if the paper disappears, you cannot unring the bell. We now know it is plausible.

The VAERS query for MS allow us to show all BH criteria are satisfied

Here there are 28X more cases of MS for the COVID shot compared to the flu shot. That’s a problem. That doesn’t happen by chance; the absolute counts are too big (it’s a 16-sigma rise). See the section on ear infections and you’ll see what the VAERS counts look like for an event that is unrelated to vaccines.

Here’s the query on myocarditis

As you can see, there are 100X more cases of myocarditis for the COVID shot vs. the flu shot which most people get every year (this is why I included from 2015 onwards). Wow. Isn’t that amazing? Some people (like “fact checkers”) thinkVAERS is junk, yet you can see the signal, can’t you?

This query shows for symptoms that are not elevated significantly by the COVID vaccines the counts are comparable to other vaccines.

Here the counts for ear infections are only slightly elevated in the COVID vaccine (15) vs. the flu vaccine (11). While it might be true that flu and COVID are elevating ear infections, that would require more investigation. The important thing here is the # of reports are comparable for flu and COVID for this symptom which we think is not elevated by vaccines.

And here’s another symptom that isn’t elevated: autism.

The Bradford Hill (BH) criteria for determining causality

The Bradford Hill criteria is widely recognized for establishing causality.

If all 5 Bradford Hill criteria are satisfied, you have causality.

From the insights from this new paper, we have biological plausibility. Even though the paper is gone, the Dr. Been video explains the mechanism. You cannot unring the bell by making the paper “go away.”

When we add in the VAERS queries above, we have all 5 causality criteria satisfied.

Don’t take my word for it. I’m just a misinformation superspreader. Verify it yourself by going down the checklist.

Estimating the number of cases

VAERS is under-reported by a factor of 41 for very serious injuries.

Less serious events where someone doesn’t die are reported much less often, e.g., an under-reporting factor of 100 is reasonable.

So 273*100 gives a rough estimate of 27,300 cases.

The reason we don’t have a better system for this (full transparency of anonymized records) is because the drug companies like it this way because if you don’t like the VAERS results you can say the system is “unreliable.” The anti-anti-vaxers rely on this hand-waving argument when it supports their narrative.

Pfizer case counts

To April 2022, Pfizer listed in their report, the following case numbers after their Covid19 jabs.

Multiple Sclerosis 517, Multiple sclerosis relapse 435, Relapsing-remitting Multiple Sclerosis 16, Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis 9, Multiple sclerosis pseudo relapse 7.

MS background rates

The background rate of new MS cases is about 10,000 per year. I suspect that other vaccines may be helping drive this as well.

Fact checking this article

If you want to “fact check” this article, simply show with evidence which Bradford Hill criteria is not satisfied.

Apparently, a lot of people commented on Dr. Been’s video that they now have an explanation for why they got MS after the shot. So it’s not rare at all.

Summary

COVID vaccines have likely caused over 25,000 cases of MS.

The CDC refuses to acknowledge the linkage even after the mechanism was shown.

Nor will they engage in any dialog about this or any other of the 770 safety signals in VAERS, including death.

That’s the way science works today.

But now you know the truth.

If you got MS after getting a COVID vaccine, it’s more likely than not caused by the vaccine, especially if it develops within 30 days after getting the shot.

————————

Original source: https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/covid-vaccines-have-likely-caused

Let’s Not Forget the One Australian that is Dying Every 15-20 Minutes, Excess Death Since the Deadly Vaccine Roll out Your Politicians and TV Presenters Pushed Upon the Public for Money

Truthbook Post By Jamie McIntyre

Let’s not forget the one Australian that is dying every 15–20 minutes, excess death since the deadly Vaccine rolls out, and your politicians and TV presenters pushed upon the public for money.

Globally, it’s 1 death every 4–6 seconds. The sad news is this is accelerating. Not only will the Government and Globalists propaganda channels masquerading as news channels (think CNN, BBC, ABC, Channel 7,9,10, and the newspapers) desperately lie to your face, even more, to cover the deaths up by spinning it that they died of Bs19, not the deadly vaxxes, but they are banking millions to do so.
What should happen to these sellouts, who took money to manipulate or force your loved ones into a suicide death shot for a rebranding of the flu that was not more deadly than the annual flu?
@anrnews

Original source: https://truthbook.social/post/202213_let-s-not-forget-the-one-australian-that-is-dying-every-15-20-minutes-excess-dea.html

The US COVID Mitigation Measures Resulted in 23X Higher COVID Deaths

By STEVE KIRSCH

I live In an Amish town in Pennsylvania.
No vaccines. No masks. No deaths from covid. pic.twitter.com/RJdhpA4Clf

— JBell (@reecebell2008) May 22, 2023

Executive summary

On May 22, 2023, I offered a $2,500 reward for anyone to give me the names of more than 5 Amish people in Lancaster, PA (which is the world’s largest single community of Amish people with over 45,000 people) who died from COVID.

Nobody could do that. I got a few names. And nobody could name anyone under 50 years old who was suspected of dying from COVID. The best anyone could do was come up with 5 names, 52 years of age and older, mostly very old people.

In other words, the Amish didn’t do anything to protect against getting COVID: no lockdowns, no vaccinations, no masks, no social distancing, no mandates, no school closures, nothing. If they got sick, they used ivermectin and other methods that were not recommended by the CDC or FDA.

90% of the Amish have been infected by COVID, yet only 5 of the Amish might have died from COVID.

This means their overall COVID infection fatality rate (IFR) for all ages is .011% and for under 50, their IFR is 0%. For >60, their IFR=.044% which is 23X lower than the surrounding community.

The US <60 IFR is .09% and <70 IFR is .18% from the Ioannidis paper.

My offer got nearly 500,000 views but no winners

The math

Let’s assume the Amish population in Lancaster, PA has 22% who are 60 or older (I used this source; there could be a better source).

Of 45,000 Amish people, that means around 10,000 over 60 and 35,000 under 60.

Over 90% of the Amish got infected.

So we have:

1. The IFR for those <60 was 1 in 31,500 infected=.003%.
2. The IFR for those <70, was 3 in 34,355=.009%.
3. The IFR for those >60 was 4 in 9,000=.044%.

Now compare with the stats in the rest of Lancaster, PA. We’ll even give them the benefit of the doubt by restricting the time range to March 17, 2021. And to give them further benefit of the doubt, we’ll assume 100% of 545,000 residents were infected.

The article says this:

COVID-19 has been devastating to Pennsylvania seniors, with nine out of every 10 fatalities among those 60 and older. In Lancaster County, 96% of COVID-19 fatalities as of March 17 — 926 of 968 — have been people aged 60 or older.

So the IFR for under 60 would be 968-926= 42 deaths.

Let’s assume 90% in Lancaster County were infected and 80% are under 60. This will give this group the lowest IFR possible for us to compare with the Amish. So we’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. So 500,000 non-Amish, 400,000 under 60, 90% infected is 360,000 and 42 deaths in the 360,000 under 60= .011%. So the death rate was around 4X higher but the numbers are too small for the Amish to really get an accurate handle on this.

For the over 60, we can calculate a more accurate IFR ratio.

926 of 100,000 non-Amish of which 90% infected gives an IFR for >60 of 926/90,000=1% which is not unexpected given that the Ioannidis paper showed 0.506% at 60–69 years. So by adding people over 69, we’d expect a higher IFR which is what we got here.

But the big problem of course is that for the over age 60 IFR:

In short, the Amish died at a 23X lower rate, despite the fact that they didn’t vaccinate, mask, social distance, lock down and they eschewed western medical care to treat COVID.

What makes the Amish so awesome is that nobody can dispute it because nobody can find the names of >5 Amish people in Lancaster, PA who died from COVID

But with the Amish there is no place to hide. It’s all in full public view for everyone to see.

The community of unvaccinated Amish is large enough to have good numbers and yet small enough that there is no place to hide the deaths. They are the “Goldilocks” for COVID mitigation: not too small, not too big, but just the right size. You can easily verify the deaths. And since virtually everyone was infected early in the pandemic where people died with a telltale “progressively harder to breathe” respiratory condition, COVID deaths were recognizable by everyone.

So there is no way to attack this.

Nor can anyone claim that the Amish have a protective gene that protects them from COVID. 90% were infected. The DoD has been studying the Amish for more than 50 years now. If there was a protective gene, they would have found it by now.

The lack of record-level data transparency from the health authorities worldwide should tell you everything you need to know

The Amish did nothing more than provide us with statistics that are publicly verifiable.

On the other hand, the US health authorities in every state and country deliberately kept the vaccine-death records from public view, providing only summary data.

You can’t get linked death-vaccine record-level data from any state or federal government anywhere in the world: they all refuse to produce them. No exceptions.

I talked to one of my State Senators about sponsoring a bill for more than an hour and he said only that he would “think about it.”

After I asked our State Epidemiologist Erica Pan if she believed in data transparency of public health data and she stopped answering my emails at that point.

Nobody will let any of us in to inspect the records either.

It’s just not allowed for anyone to see the data and learn the truth.

We are all supposed to trust them.

Sometimes I get lucky and get leaked data in my mailbox. What little data I was able to get from public health records showed that the COVID vaccines are killing people. The slope of deaths was supposed to go down after vaccination, not up.

The government of Israel found a similar result: No deaths under age 50 for people with no comorbidities

Think I’m wrong?

Simply post a link to your Substack or blog with your IFR calculations.

I really can’t wait to read the blogs from David Gorski, Susan Oliver, Dorit Reiss, Debunk the Funk, and others!

I predict they will all be “hand-waving” arguments that dismiss the data. They never actually have any evidence behind their arguments.

Or they’ll ignore this because it’s simply too hard to attack.

There will be no math in their rebuttals, just a lot of hot air.

Want to fact check me?

If you are a fact checker who works for mainstream media, this is the story of the decade on how everything they had us do was unnecessary and made things worse.

Just give me a call on my cell phone. It’s easy to find my number. We can have a nice discussion that both of us will record.

Summary

Thanks to the Amish, we now know that the entire pandemic response was a disaster. Collectively, these measures increased COVID deaths by 23X.

It was never necessary to turn the country upside down to respond to the COVID virus.

Not only were all the mitigations (vaccines, masks, shutdowns, social distancing, hospital treatment programs with remdesivir, school closures, school masking, forced vaccinations, …) unnecessary, but the mitigation measures recommended by the CDC made deaths from 23X higher than they ever needed to be.

The story of the Amish is very compelling evidence that nobody has been able to “explain away” with evidence backing their “explanations.”

The fact checkers will avoid fact checking this article. If they do fact check it, they won’t call me on the phone. I’m happy to work with them on this if they call me on the phone and talk to me. I’ll provide all my sources. Any fact checker can easily get my number. But they won’t do that because they are afraid of the facts.

We’d have been way better off if we just used early treatments when people got sick as the only countermeasure.

Maybe next time the CDC should listen seriously to those people who disagree with them before making their next healthcare recommendation? Their “public input” sessions are a joke, they never respond to my emails asking them to explain any of the data, and they block my emails.

Will the CDC ever admit they screwed up and should have just recommended early treatment with ivermectin, vitamin D, nasal irrigation with povidone iodine, etc? Probably not in my lifetime, unless RFK Jr. gets elected President.

So I thought it was important for you to know what a disaster the public health recommendations were because the mainstream media, medical community, and your elected representatives in Congress are simply never going to let you know.

Original source: https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/breaking-the-us-covid-mitigation