Estimating Vaccine-Induced Mortality, Part 3: Q&A and the Million Dollar Bounty

The Chloroquine Wars Part LV

I've been fielding a lot of emails over the past few days, and I'd like to share a few thoughts.

First, a wealthy donor who spends a great deal of money on health research put a $1 million bounty on proving my arguments wrong.

I have also been encouraged to work with a well-respected physician-researcher to turn my articles into published research. That is a possibility, but I want to beat on the ideas and calculations longer (and encourage you to do so as well). If I have time (are there enough hours in the day?), I'd like to test the sensitivities of the results under slight redefinitions of the functions. Statistics is often a dirtier process than pure math, so this isn't like writing a proof.

Before going much further, I'd like to say the following:

  1. I am more certain that my arguments are factually correct than I am that the truth is that there are in the ballpark of 400 deaths per million doses. There will always be noise in data, and there may be explanations we haven't yet worked out. In this case, they need to be worked out. The Precautionary Principle is under threat, and the potential damage that represents goes far beyond the damage done by SARS-CoV-2. I'm working on a problem that concerns me, and that I feel should concern every humanitarian.

  2. My second article includes modeling that could be slightly improved, but I didn't take further steps because I could see that those improvements I had in mind would have minimal effects. There is also a great deal of need to sort out the distinction between nations that saw huge case waves after vaccination, and those that saw rises in mortality.

  3. I hope that I'm wrong.

  4. Authorities are responsible for figuring this out. There is so much at stake, and they tell us "safe and effective" before publishing a single risk report, risk-benefit analysis, or even making mention of long-term safety studies that could not possibly have taken place.

  5. Ignoring his bounty would represent a lack of veracity in the position that the vaccines are safe.

  6. Aside from the risk-benefit analysis, there are disaster scenarios that require consideration. I know that antibody dependent enhancement is currently being discussed by some doctors and researchers, but I list several others down below.

I am currently working on several analyses (including state-by-state U.S. data) that may or may not be consistent with the theory that there are at least 72,000 vaccine-induced deaths in the U.S. (my current pin is 140,000, but with a high error bar). Some are short and some are long. I slept less than 2.5 hours four times in the past ten days (but happily 12 in the past 28 hours), and get hundreds of emails a day now. I'm trying to learn a near emergency level of time management without shortening attention to the primary concern. I may have also brought COVID back from a recent wedding (home antigen test negative), but headaches, mild sniffles, and the uniquely dry cough aside, the illness was fortunately mild, whatever it was. But it did slow my work.

The Primary Goal is a Risk-Benefit Analysis

While authorities seem actively disinterested in such a goal, I plan to do my best to put the pieces together, even if some pieces are first-order envelope math, though I plan to go beyond that, where possible, and the task may only require first-order estimates to make the point. Honestly, I personally think that what appears to be suppression of evidence, including the discouragement of autopsies to answer questions about vaccine deaths, should be enough to convince most people that there is a major problem, but apparently many people are too deeply hypnotized by COVID fear for one nudge to wake them. I am working with multiple published VAERS researchers, and many others who are helpful in the goal.

It is noteworthy that the case fatality rate is crashing hard in the U.S., which is in line with my previous calculations and thoughts on how a Delta (variant) wave would affect a risk-benefit assessment.

Even if I am overestimating vaccine-associated mortality by a factor of 5 or 10, the risk-benefit on mortality still looks negative to me. That's before we start discussing risks like antibody dependent enhancement, original antigenic sin, unknown long-term fertility risks, prion disease (which I know only the tiniest bit about), and whatever known unknowns you want to toss in the basket with the unknown unknowns. Having eyeballs of researchers and statisticians from major universities on the problem is absolutely worth settling the question, and I'm sure the donor would be happy to have paid for the exercise. If somebody convinces me that there are perhaps "only" 20,000 vaccine-induced deaths, I will both thank them and firmly pass my judgment to the donor regarding who convinced me.

Outside of the mortality question, the serious AEs are likely on the order of 2.5 million in the U.S. alone, so I doubt the QALY comparison of SAEs vs. long haul COVID look favorable to vaccination, either.

The VAERS "Stimulated Reporting" Debate

I've been frustrated by what I consider a "dense" argument that VAERS reports are sky high only or mostly due to a "report requirement". By the Precautionary Principle, it is the responsibility of those pushing vaccines to study any degree of underreporting, regardless. This stimulated reporting argument seems to be one that those closest to official positions make like a vague mumble, but others on social media have insisted at those questioning vaccine safety. A trusted friend and scientist pointed out to me today that there was also such a reporting requirement for the H1N1 vaccine. While VAERS is still backlogged, and reports piling up, the COVID-19 vaccines already resulted in the following per dose scale factors (according to the same researcher) of reports relative to the H1N1 vaccine, which was itself considered among the more dangerous of vaccines.

  • Deaths: 35.1x

  • Life Threatening Events: 13.2x

  • Permanent Disability: 19.5x

  • Hospitalization: 13.5x

  • Emergency Room Visits: 18.2x

  • Serious Adverse Events: 14.8x

  • Not Serious Adverse Events: 14.9x

The H1N1 vaccines were several times deadlier, with similarly higher severe adverse events and hospitalizations than typical flu vaccines.

The Australia Problem

I have been asked about Australia. Sigh.

First, it is important to note that island nations, globally, have reacted characteristically differently to COVID. It is easier to limit traffic to islands, obviously, and they get fewer visitors during a global "crisis". They may engage in more strict quarantine. But it is also not clear the extent to which they had similar or distinct profiles of prior immunity---particularly in Oceania.

One theory I've had regarding my second mortality analysis relates to the reactivation of viruses we've been hearing about. But I don't have a strong theory yet---just numbers. Perhaps such an effect is different in Australia for some reason. Regardless, excess mortality for the oldest in Australia did jump 12 percent from Feb 21 to March 14 as vaccines were rolled out. Perhaps there were excess deaths, but not recorded the same way I suspect they were in Europe or the U.S. (as COVID deaths).

While I have not yet written about it or have a strong belief, I take seriously the possibility that a SARS-CoV-2 progenitor circulated heavily through the Asia-Pacific Rim during 2018-2019. The Ethical Skeptic has written about this possibility numerous times, though I have not looked deeply enough to have a firm opinion. However, finding out that there were riots in Wuhan over illness prior to "leaked in the Fall of 2019" theory would predict, the lack of epidemic during mass migrations during heavy floods in China in 2020, the strange "foresight" of some governmental decisions, and the "party in Wuhan" aftermath are all reasons to pause and think deeper into the complete story.

The Ethical Skeptic also tweeted out this scatterplot showing no correlation between vaccine acceptance and performance based on vaccination use (meaning essentially zero net mortality benefit), though I have not had time to check the data. However, as Chris Martenson walks through, the result is consistent with Pfizer's six month mortality report. Take that as you will, but ES has been a source of high factual accuracy and solid reasoning in my experience, whether or not all the ES theories turn out to be correct.

It is telling how many intelligent people are publishing under pseudonyms these days.

It is also perfectly possible that Australia is a counterexample to the substantial vaccine-induced mortality theory. It may be that over 200 nations, the statistical noise is enough that a truly causal problem may have muted signals among some of them. Then again, I've been told by Australians that there are reports of vaccine deaths and injuries being systematically covered up.

Safe and Effective?

Anyone using those words should be considered incompetent, irresponsible, and uncaring without each of the following:

  • A standard for what "safe" and "effective" each mean.

  • A risk-benefit analysis they can point to that demonstrates more good than harm.

My read on the people talking like this, vaguely claiming the experts and The Science is that their body language reads as acting sociopaths and often secretly gleeful. Nobody should be in a position of responsibility or influence who makes such claims over periods of weeks or months without checking to see whether those experts in The Science have a defining argument (a risk-benefit analysis) to point to. That the closest thing to a risk-benefit report that experts can point to are trial reports by one corporation with a criminal history that would make Moriarty blush, and another with no history of successful profit development, but dependence on government money, should make any thoughtful person take pause.

At this point, I would challenge every doctor to make a public statement about whether or not these vaccines should be studied further before being designated as "safe and effective". I think a lot of people will want to understand how their physicians connect to evidence in the future, and this moment gives the best signal imaginable.