It is honestly depressing to see that we've reached a point at which a post like this that helps begin to sort away the bad takes, and sort into the good takes, is one of the least popular.
I am to a large extent sheltered from the gnashing of teeth over the specs of the skimpy, corrupted data because of my own real experience seeing morbidity and mortality in a clinic setting where the vaccines were given.
Those of us who are lucky enough (and by lucky I mean the weird kind of “get hated and then fired” kind of lucky) to have had personal experiences of the patterns of vaccine damage need to figure out a way to communicate this meaningfully.
This experience made me absolutely certain of 3 things:
1) the shots flat out killed a bunch of (mostly) elderly folks within a couple weeks of injection #2,
2) masses, just unbelievable numbers of people suffered nasty adverse effects which were absolutely never in any way associated by their healthcare team (in fact rigidly and dogmatically ignored) as being from the vaccine and
3) it would be a stretch to say 1% of these adverse events and deaths were reported to VAERS. Essentially none of them were. If VAERS shows a spike, it’s the tip of the iceberg.
All the comments I see about likelihood of reporting now vs then or at some future point based on psychology and “normal” behaviors, about how physicians are *reQUIred* to report adverse events (lololol) etc. just do not in any way align with my vivid personal experience. Nothing was normal around these vaccines and nothing ever will be. The psychosis, ideologically polarized condition and the mass propaganda coalesced to create a totally irrational and dangerous blinding to reality amongst physicians and patients.
I saw people develop sudden onset severe and disabling conditions, seek medical help for those conditions, ask their physicians if it could be from the vaccine and be told flatly “no”. I saw those same patients plead for exemptions from second doses, still reeling from their first gruesome experiences, be flatly denied exemptions.
My knowledge of statistics is limited and I was born without a graphing function in my brains, but I know these things. These are the things I take to the few remaining cage matches I enter around the vaccines. It would be super cool (in a grim, dystopian horror show type of cool) to see these bits of personal experience validated by real world data, no doubt. But back on planet lies where we actually live, it’ll probably never fully happen in the mainstream.
For emotional reasons I want to blame the shots for all the under-70 people I've lost already and am losing, probably this year. Shocking increased morbidity. Can those stats be teased out? So many. Too young. Previously healthy or stable with a condition well managed or resolved years ago. Some in prime of life. Developed something new and aggressive, or deteriorated dramatically for no apparent reason other than the second or third or fourth shot. I feel wronged when their illnesses are called unrelated and deaths called expected.
Of course, a large part of the problem here is that CDC STILL will not release all the data they have regarding events by vaccination status, which would end the debate. At the same time that does raise suspicions as to WHY they will not release the data. Surely, if there is any doubt that the gene therapies are "safe and effective", the best way to end that debate would be just to release all the data?
Mathew, my hope is that you don't give up trying to keep Steve honest. My reading of him through his videos is that he listens to you, even when he doesn't act on your input in the way you hope. (I don't know him otherwise, although I am his age, and am connected in a distant friend-of-a-friend sort of way that makes me think I know a something about him. Enough to trust that his motivations are legitimate.)
Does anyone believe that the DOD, FDA, CDC, WHO, big pharma and all the other provocateurs of the current pandemic and fake vaccines are going to allow REAL all-encompassing data to be revealed? Is it even being collected? How efficient is VAERS? All these graphs and stats are mostly guesswork using very incomplete data sets.
The covid pandemic and resulting mRNA injections are not subject to investigation or question. This is the only way this farce can be perpetrated on the entire planet. It is meant to be kept as a BIG SECRET for 50 years...or until the next fake pandemic is thrown at us by billy g and his moronic cohorts.
It's not clear to me why people are so focused on trying to find a signal on short timeframes, when the primary 'vector' for excess mortality is more likely to develop more slowly.
The main PREDICTABLE consequence of repeated dosing with a non-sterilising 'vaccine', is the shift in the immune response: over-production of the 'wrong' types of immunoglobulin and virtual cessation of production of the 'right' types. Effectively making the immune system to respond as if it's facing pollen or bee venom, and simultaneously downregulating cytotoxicity.
This 'immune tolerance' in hundreds of millions of people is where the 'meat' will be. It's also been a 'known known' since 1989. The Puppy-Torturer co-authored a paper on it in 2015.
As Rintrah points out, the "immune tolerance" issue might have much broader implications.
In other interesting news: the Puppy-Torturer is also coauthor on a recent paper which basically lays out why EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that the mRNA shots wouldn't work.
That's in "Cell Host & Microbe" and is basically a suicide note for the Narrative.
Part of the trouble is that people seeking to prove something with statistics tend to assume their conclusion - then draw a graph which is an argument in favor of that conclusion. My bet is that the breakdown goes like this: Immediate/short term deaths due to anaphylaxis, PEG allergic reactions, cytokine storms; medium term due to autoimmune disorders/ADE; long term due to biasing immune reaction to IgG4 antibodies, which train the body to tolerate large viral loads resulting in cellular damage from virus and cumulative damage with little or no symptoms, until the person reaches a tipping point and drops dead. In only the first case can the deaths be directly attributed to the vaccine, the rest are indirect effects. Pure death stats tell nothing in the latter two cases. "I can't show you my data" should automatically serve as a red flag, because it's impossible to replicate any analysis or conclusions drawn, If I were peer-reviewing a paper (been there, done that, my research prof for my PhD was the editor of Tetrahedron), I'd reject out of hand any paper where the author tried this. Replicability is a big thing in science - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201218 and https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/11/12/1011944/artificial-intelligence-replication-crisis-science-big-tech-google-deepmind-facebook-openai/
Thanks for taking a look at this Mathew! I was really disappointed by Steve's post and also found it unconvincing. How about the following idea: Create a control group of unvaccinated individuals with suitable matching criteria (age, gender, location, medical history) and plot the same mortality curve assuming fake shots on the same days for comparison.
Is there any way you could share the data?
Proper statistical causal inference is possible if care is taken to adjust for confounders and make appropriate causal assumptions. There are great books by Hernan and Robins https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/miguel-hernan/causal-inference-book/ , Judea Pearl, and Imbens and Rubin. along with some infighting on the best ways to go about it.
How many deaths are being coded as vaccine side effect related deaths. Very few I’m guessing... we can’t even get a Dr to admit the jab caused my moms health issues.
If they are NOT correctly categorizing deaths by vaccine .. how are you separating them
'This is going to be tough, but here is something I would do: divide each data point (total mortality) by the number of person-days (people who survived to at least that day) to get the proportion of the living people who died each day. The distribution of that ratio will be more telling, and its comparisons to other vaccines given to the elderly might tell us an interesting story.'
Is this similar to the methodology Florida used to say there was a safety signal like 6 months ago? I remember they did some interesting maneuver using a previous period of time to set the control group for the comparison.
It is honestly depressing to see that we've reached a point at which a post like this that helps begin to sort away the bad takes, and sort into the good takes, is one of the least popular.
I am to a large extent sheltered from the gnashing of teeth over the specs of the skimpy, corrupted data because of my own real experience seeing morbidity and mortality in a clinic setting where the vaccines were given.
Those of us who are lucky enough (and by lucky I mean the weird kind of “get hated and then fired” kind of lucky) to have had personal experiences of the patterns of vaccine damage need to figure out a way to communicate this meaningfully.
This experience made me absolutely certain of 3 things:
1) the shots flat out killed a bunch of (mostly) elderly folks within a couple weeks of injection #2,
2) masses, just unbelievable numbers of people suffered nasty adverse effects which were absolutely never in any way associated by their healthcare team (in fact rigidly and dogmatically ignored) as being from the vaccine and
3) it would be a stretch to say 1% of these adverse events and deaths were reported to VAERS. Essentially none of them were. If VAERS shows a spike, it’s the tip of the iceberg.
All the comments I see about likelihood of reporting now vs then or at some future point based on psychology and “normal” behaviors, about how physicians are *reQUIred* to report adverse events (lololol) etc. just do not in any way align with my vivid personal experience. Nothing was normal around these vaccines and nothing ever will be. The psychosis, ideologically polarized condition and the mass propaganda coalesced to create a totally irrational and dangerous blinding to reality amongst physicians and patients.
I saw people develop sudden onset severe and disabling conditions, seek medical help for those conditions, ask their physicians if it could be from the vaccine and be told flatly “no”. I saw those same patients plead for exemptions from second doses, still reeling from their first gruesome experiences, be flatly denied exemptions.
My knowledge of statistics is limited and I was born without a graphing function in my brains, but I know these things. These are the things I take to the few remaining cage matches I enter around the vaccines. It would be super cool (in a grim, dystopian horror show type of cool) to see these bits of personal experience validated by real world data, no doubt. But back on planet lies where we actually live, it’ll probably never fully happen in the mainstream.
For emotional reasons I want to blame the shots for all the under-70 people I've lost already and am losing, probably this year. Shocking increased morbidity. Can those stats be teased out? So many. Too young. Previously healthy or stable with a condition well managed or resolved years ago. Some in prime of life. Developed something new and aggressive, or deteriorated dramatically for no apparent reason other than the second or third or fourth shot. I feel wronged when their illnesses are called unrelated and deaths called expected.
Of course, a large part of the problem here is that CDC STILL will not release all the data they have regarding events by vaccination status, which would end the debate. At the same time that does raise suspicions as to WHY they will not release the data. Surely, if there is any doubt that the gene therapies are "safe and effective", the best way to end that debate would be just to release all the data?
Mathew, my hope is that you don't give up trying to keep Steve honest. My reading of him through his videos is that he listens to you, even when he doesn't act on your input in the way you hope. (I don't know him otherwise, although I am his age, and am connected in a distant friend-of-a-friend sort of way that makes me think I know a something about him. Enough to trust that his motivations are legitimate.)
It is time to unify over our biggest problem: Corruption.
It’s the one thing the people who are doing the corrupting fear most:
https://open.substack.com/pub/joshketry/p/lets-unify-over-our-biggest-problem?r=7oa9d&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
This is fantastic.
Does anyone believe that the DOD, FDA, CDC, WHO, big pharma and all the other provocateurs of the current pandemic and fake vaccines are going to allow REAL all-encompassing data to be revealed? Is it even being collected? How efficient is VAERS? All these graphs and stats are mostly guesswork using very incomplete data sets.
The covid pandemic and resulting mRNA injections are not subject to investigation or question. This is the only way this farce can be perpetrated on the entire planet. It is meant to be kept as a BIG SECRET for 50 years...or until the next fake pandemic is thrown at us by billy g and his moronic cohorts.
Glad to see you two working together again, however briefly.
It's not clear to me why people are so focused on trying to find a signal on short timeframes, when the primary 'vector' for excess mortality is more likely to develop more slowly.
The main PREDICTABLE consequence of repeated dosing with a non-sterilising 'vaccine', is the shift in the immune response: over-production of the 'wrong' types of immunoglobulin and virtual cessation of production of the 'right' types. Effectively making the immune system to respond as if it's facing pollen or bee venom, and simultaneously downregulating cytotoxicity.
This 'immune tolerance' in hundreds of millions of people is where the 'meat' will be. It's also been a 'known known' since 1989. The Puppy-Torturer co-authored a paper on it in 2015.
Igor Chudov has written quite a bit on this on "Igor's Newsletter" -> https://igorchudov.substack.com/ .
The issue is covered in detail by a chap from the Netherlands "Rintrah Radagast"; the most recent piece is "The trainwreck of all trainwrecks: Billions of people stuck with a broken immune response" -> https://www.rintrah.nl/the-trainwreck-of-all-trainwrecks-billions-of-people-stuck-with-a-broken-immune-response/ .
As Rintrah points out, the "immune tolerance" issue might have much broader implications.
In other interesting news: the Puppy-Torturer is also coauthor on a recent paper which basically lays out why EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that the mRNA shots wouldn't work.
That's in "Cell Host & Microbe" and is basically a suicide note for the Narrative.
"Rethinking next-generation vaccines for coronaviruses, influenzaviruses, and other respiratory viruses" -> https://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/fulltext/S1931-3128(22)00572-8
"Rethinking"? It would have been nice if there had been evidence of some INITIAL 'thinking' that wasn't totally centred on Pfizer's P&L.
Part of the trouble is that people seeking to prove something with statistics tend to assume their conclusion - then draw a graph which is an argument in favor of that conclusion. My bet is that the breakdown goes like this: Immediate/short term deaths due to anaphylaxis, PEG allergic reactions, cytokine storms; medium term due to autoimmune disorders/ADE; long term due to biasing immune reaction to IgG4 antibodies, which train the body to tolerate large viral loads resulting in cellular damage from virus and cumulative damage with little or no symptoms, until the person reaches a tipping point and drops dead. In only the first case can the deaths be directly attributed to the vaccine, the rest are indirect effects. Pure death stats tell nothing in the latter two cases. "I can't show you my data" should automatically serve as a red flag, because it's impossible to replicate any analysis or conclusions drawn, If I were peer-reviewing a paper (been there, done that, my research prof for my PhD was the editor of Tetrahedron), I'd reject out of hand any paper where the author tried this. Replicability is a big thing in science - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201218 and https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/11/12/1011944/artificial-intelligence-replication-crisis-science-big-tech-google-deepmind-facebook-openai/
Thanks Matthew. I was wondering what your take on it would be while I was reading Kirsch's article.
Thanks for taking a look at this Mathew! I was really disappointed by Steve's post and also found it unconvincing. How about the following idea: Create a control group of unvaccinated individuals with suitable matching criteria (age, gender, location, medical history) and plot the same mortality curve assuming fake shots on the same days for comparison.
Is there any way you could share the data?
Proper statistical causal inference is possible if care is taken to adjust for confounders and make appropriate causal assumptions. There are great books by Hernan and Robins https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/miguel-hernan/causal-inference-book/ , Judea Pearl, and Imbens and Rubin. along with some infighting on the best ways to go about it.
How many deaths are being coded as vaccine side effect related deaths. Very few I’m guessing... we can’t even get a Dr to admit the jab caused my moms health issues.
If they are NOT correctly categorizing deaths by vaccine .. how are you separating them
'This is going to be tough, but here is something I would do: divide each data point (total mortality) by the number of person-days (people who survived to at least that day) to get the proportion of the living people who died each day. The distribution of that ratio will be more telling, and its comparisons to other vaccines given to the elderly might tell us an interesting story.'
Is this similar to the methodology Florida used to say there was a safety signal like 6 months ago? I remember they did some interesting maneuver using a previous period of time to set the control group for the comparison.
I'm glad you're helping Steve - statistics is not my forte. :)