For Covid Homework: The Evidence By Brian Simpson

Steve Kirsch has done some hard work putting together in one post a summary of the main arguments against the Covid vaxxes, base upon their level of danger. Not everything is covered, but it is a post which can be sent around to people who need to be educated about the vaxxes. I know it  is late in the day, but this vax business is not over and is just beginning, with a whole new range of mRNA vaxxes set to be unleashed.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-evidence

“Executive summary

Here’s a high-level collection of some of the most compelling pieces of evidence I’ve seen to date. This is not an exhaustive list, but just the key pieces of data that are impossible to explain if the vaccines are safe and effective.

I’ve divided the collection into sections and I’ve tried to limit each section to the most compelling data points. So don’t be disappointed if your favorite item isn’t mentioned in this article; I wanted to keep it short enough to be read..

I’ll try to keep this updated over time. It can be found in the Reference section of my Substack.

The phase 3 clinical trial data

  1. The Pfizer trial 6 month reportshowed absolutely no all-cause morbidity or mortality benefit. There were no benefits at all. It was all negative. Ask your doctor why you should take a new, unproven medical intervention that is not shown to have an overall benefit.
  2. The Pfizer trial 6 month reportshowed that more people died (and were injured) who got the drug than who got the placebo. It’s supposed to be the other way around. More importantly, none of the people in the vaccine group were judged by the drug manufacturer to have been killed by the vaccine. They do not reveal the tests they did and how they were confidently able to make that assessment. Why the secrecy here, especially in light of the study by Bhakdi and Burkhardt showing that trained medical examiner missed the causality link in 93% of the cases they looked at?
  3. The Pfizer trial 6 month reportshowed that at best, the drug saved only 1 COVID life per 22,000 recipients. This means that at best, after vaccinating 220M Americans, we might save 10,000 lives from COVID. But the VAERS reports show an excess death toll of well over 10,000 people and that’s before applying the minimum estimated under-reporting factor of 41. So there isn’t a mortality benefit: it’s actually the reverse. Furthermore, VAERS only considers the short term deaths and is highly unlikely to report those deaths happening 5 months after the shot which appear to be the bulk of the deaths. This makes the comparison even worse.
  4. The Classen paperanalyzed the clinical trial data for all three US vaccines and confirmed the lack of a benefit (there was an increase in morbidity which was highly statistically significant in all three vaccines): “Based on this data it is all but a certainty that mass COVID-19 immunization is hurting the health of the population in general. Scientific principles dictate that the mass immunization with COVID-19 vaccines must be halted immediately because we face a looming vaccine induced public health catastrophe.”
  5. The paper by Christine Stabell Bennentitled, “Randomised Clinical Trials of COVID-19 Vaccines: Do Adenovirus-Vector Vaccines Have Beneficial Non-Specific Effects?” confirmed that there was no mortality benefit by taking the COVID mRNA vaccines. “Based on the RCTs with the longest possible follow-up, mRNA vaccines had no effect on overall mortality despite protecting against fatal COVID-19.” See this article by Daniel Horowitz for more information. In other words, these vaccines have no death benefit. Period. Full stop. This is just like the Canadian analysis below showed.
  6. Serious adverse reactions, including paralysis, were not reported to the FDA and there were other serious discrepancies in the trials. For some reason, nobody seems to be interested in exploring or explaining these very serious issues. Some are very clear cut such as the case of Maddie de Garay who was one of 1,000 kids in the clinical trial. She’s paralyzed now and has to eat with a feeding tube. The FDA and Pfizer never investigated, but reported her results as mild abdominal pain in the trial results.
  7. Pfizer admitted to clinical trial fraud in federal court. Their defense was that the FDA was in on it.

Official government data

  1. The VAERS data, which is the official adverse event reporting system used by the US government, shows that an estimated hundreds of thousands have died and millions have been injured. If these weren’t caused by the vaccine, what caused them? Why are there more adverse events reported for these vaccines than for all other vaccines in history combined? Nobody can answer that question. See this tutorialand this recent confirmation and this article on VAERS and causality. Here’s how these numbers were calculated. Here is independent confirmation of the estimates by Dr. Naomi Wolf who used different datasets. No fact checker was interested in contacting me to challenge the facts since I insist on recording the call. Also, the causality of events was confirmed by the Israeli safety studies, but nobody wants to look at those.

 

Can you spot the unsafe vaccine? People at the CDC don’t see any problem with this mortality chart: all the vaccines look perfectly safe.

  1. The US Social Security Death Master File showed a 60% increase in death rate in September 2021 vs. September 2020. According to the insurance companies, it wasn’t COVID. A five month delay in death vs. vaccination was discovered in multiple countries, not just the US. Different studies found nearly identical delays.
  2. US disability rose dramatically soon after the vaccines rolled out (Y axis is Z-score). A 3 sigma increase is hard to explain.

 

  1. As of Sep 2, 2022, the vaccination rate in Israel is now just 2.4%. They used to be one of the world’s most vaccinated countries. Today, very few people in Israel are considered to be vaccinated. If the vaccines are so beneficial, why has nearly the entire country shifted from extremely pro-vax to extremely anti-vax in such a short period of time?

 

Statements from government officials

  1. The Israeli Ministry of Health revealed in a confidential meeting with scientists that the reason that they never notified the people of Israel about the safety issues from the vaccines was because of budget/staffing issues. Apparently, while they had millions of dollars to promote the vaccines as safe and effective, they forgot to budget for the possibility they were wrong.

Independent expert reports solicited by government officials

  1. The Israeli vaccine safety datashowed very clearly the side-effects are serious, long-lasting, and caused by the vaccines. Secondly, it showed that the Israeli authorities and the worldwide mainstream media are covering it all up. It also showed that US officials were not interested in seeing credible COVID vaccine safety that didn’t go along with the narrative. I tried to find out why, but nobody would talk to me. Harvard Professor Martin Kulldorff, a widely respected authority on vaccines, when asked why these people wouldn’t want to see the data, replied, “I don’t know.” This is the single most damaging report in the history of the COVID vaccines. Nobody wants to talk about it. They are hoping it will die. It won’t.
  2. The Canadian reportprepared for the Liberal Party of Canada (Trudeau’s party) showed no benefit for infection, hospitalization, and death for those under 60. “The empirical evidence investigated in this report from PHO and PHAC does not support continuing mass vaccination programs, mandates, passports and travel bans for all age groups.” You can’t have a vaccine that doesn’t work in Canada work in other countries. The authors of the report had to hide their identities for fear of retribution.

Pre-prints from highly credible sources

  1. The Harvard-Hopkins-UCSFstudy showed it is unethical to mandate vaccination for college students and anyone younger. The clearly said, “University booster mandates are unethical.”
  2. The Thailand studydid blood tests before vs. after the jab and determined that nearly 30% of young adults experienced cardiovascular injuries after the jab. How is that safe? And why didn’t anyone in the US ever do such a study? Do we not want to know? This was a simple as a blood test before and after the vaccine. Why did they not notify parents as soon as the study was published?
  3. The study by Bhakdi and Burkhardtshowing 93% of deaths after vaccination were caused by the vaccine
  4. The data showing the vaccines cause prion diseasesshortly after vaccination. This is impossible if the vaccines are truly safe. See the paper on ScienceOpen.com (after ResearchGate removed it).
  5. Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine-Induced Myocarditis Requiring Hospitalizationby Jessica Rose and Peter McCullough showing the myocarditis caused by the vaccine have distinct biomarkers.

Papers published in peer-reviewed medical journals

  1. The Fraiman-Doshi paperlooked at serious adverse event rates and found that the vaccines may not be as safe as has been claimed, but they cannot do a proper analysis because they are not allowed to see the data. “Full transparency of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data is needed to properly evaluate these questions. Unfortunately, as we approach 2 years after release of COVID-19 vaccines, participant level data remain inaccessible.” You have to wonder: if the vaccine is so safe, why are the drug companies hiding the data?
  2. The Levi cardiac arrest rate elevation papershowed a troubling correlation between vaccine doses and increased cardiac events from January–May 2021. When they tried to get data after May 2021, they were refused access. This begs the question: if the vaccines are perfectly safe, what are they trying to hide?
  3. There are over 1,250 papers published in the scientific peer-reviewed literature showing the vaccine cause significant adverse events.
  4. The Walach paperfound that the vaccines harm more people than they save.
  5. This news article published in the BMJshowed that at least 10% of the deaths after vaccination were caused by the vaccine. Funny, in America we think the number is 0. They can’t both be right. Someone should investigate why we have different results. This is very important. In fact, with a deeper investigation, over 90% of the deaths thought by medical examiners not to be caused by the vaccine were shown to be caused by the vaccine. This suggests that the US isn’t looking at the deaths.

Autopsy reports

There are specialized tests required to diagnose a death from the COVID vaccine.

The CDC has never told any medical examiner in the US about these tests.

So the medical examiners aren’t implicating the vaccine in any of the deaths.

The question is we know what the tests are, we know there is solid evidence from multiple countries that the vaccine causes death, yet we refuse to even consider the possibility that the vaccine caused the deaths. Why?

Retracted papers published in peer-reviewed journals

This paper, A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products, was retracted because the publisher didn’t like the result. So he unilaterally decided to retract the paper. This is unethical.

Here’s the “withdrawn” notice.

Here is the backstory as well as this censorship update.

The publisher hasn’t fixed the problem in over a year despite assurances it would be quickly resolved.

Here is another retracted paper that was correct:

Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19? by Ron Kostoff
“Compared with the 28,000 deaths the CDC stated were due to COVID-19 and not associated morbidities for the 65+ age range, the inoculation-based deaths are an order-of-magnitude greater than the COVID-19 deaths!

That is basically what I found: the vaccines kill >10X more people than the number of COVID deaths that they save. The paper passed peer review and was published. The editor of the journal quit after he was over-ridden by the publisher on the retraction.

The reason cited for the retraction:

  1. The use of key terminology, specifically the key terms “inoculation” and “vaccination” diverges from common use and are incorrect, indicating clear evidence of bias.
  2. Publicly available data from the United States Center for Disease Control (U.S. CDC) were concluded by the external reviewers to be misinterpreted to make the erroneous conclusion that the vast majority of reported deaths due to COVID-19 are actually due to other comorbidities. Such an egregious misinterpretation and misrepresentation are unacceptable.

This is completely bogus for two reasons:

  1. The editor could have easily normalized the terminology to eliminate any perceived “bias.” They simply ask the author to do a quick search and replace.
  2. The vast majority of COVID-19 deaths were in fact due to other co-morbidities. For example, the New Mexico death records where COVID-19 was listed as the cause of death and 5 out 6 were not consistent with a COVID death. If anyone wants to challenge me on that, I have access to the death data. In Massachusetts, only 10% to 20% of the deaths listed as COVID were actually caused by COVID. Most people don’t have access to the death data, but I do. So I wonder if the journal is interested in fixing their error?

Hard-to-explain anecdotes

Can anyone explain how these anecdotes are possible?

  1. The Died Suddenly group on Facebookwas adding users at 20,000 per day making it the fastest growing group in Facebook history. They had to throttle the growth rate due to attempts by the British military to infiltrate the group to cause it to be shut down.
  2. The average age of the people reported dead in the Died Suddenly grouphas been trending younger and younger over time. How can you explain that? The only worldwide massive intervention that goes to younger people is the COVID vaccine.
  3. The embalmer data (such as The Epoch Times articleand this interview).
  4. Insurance company data from insurance companies worldwide:
    1. Adults Aged 35–44 Died at Twice the Expected Rate Last Summer, Life Insurance Data Suggests
    2. Millennials Experienced ‘84 Percent Rise of Excess Mortality’ Into Fall 2021: Former BlackRock Portfolio Manager
  5. Wayne Root’s wedding: 200 guests, half vaxxed, half unvaxxed. Only the vaxxed got injured (26%) or died (7%). I surveyed my readers and the readers collectively reported very similar stats. That’s hard to explain if there isn’t a huge effect.
  6. My neurologist stats: 11 years without needing to do a single VAERS report; this year, needs to file 1,000 VAERS reports. How will anyone explain that?
  7. The polling results using third party polling firms(so not my followers) consistently showing more people died from the vaccine than from the virus. The mainstream media refuses to do similar surveys and most survey firms refuse to even ask the questions.
  8. Ten different surveys I did
  9. The fact that Paul Offit isn’t going to get the latest boostereven though the CDC says he should
  10. Google searchesshow people became interested in topics related to vaccine safety before they became popular on social media
  11. When I ask data/statistics experts such as Joel Smalley and Professor Norman Fenton whether they’ve seen any credible data proving the vaccines are safe and effective, they are unable to cite a single reference.

Books

  1. Turtles all the way down: Vaccine science and myth
  2. Dissolving Illusions

Slide presentations

  1. Vaccine Secrets: a 20 minute slide presentation from CHD
  2. The CCCA presentations:
    1. Stop the shots,
    2. More Harm Than Good
    3. Dispelling the Myth

Mitigation measures: masks, vaccines, lockdowns, social distancing, 6 foot rule, …

This was a very well done study, but it is of course attacked by the pro narrative people. We’d love to have an open debate about this study, but the other side doesn’t want to talk about it in a neutral forum.

A LITERATURE REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF LOCKDOWNS ON COVID-19 MORTALITY

Masks don’t work at all. See this article which has plenty of references. If anything, masks are more likely to hurt you than to benefit you.

There is no study at all on the 6 foot distance rule. They just made that one up.

Origin of the virus investigation

Professor Jeffrey Sachs was tasked by The Lancet to lead an independent investigation into the source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. After he determined it came from US biotechnology, all of a sudden nobody wanted to pursue the investigation any further.

Questions for lawmakers

  1. Why can't we have open forums where our public health officials can be challenged by experts who disagree? Is there proof that having open debate results in worse outcomes?
  2. Why doesn’t anyone want to see the Israeli safety data?
  3. Why isn’t anyone asking for Fauci’s unredacted emails?
  4. Is there a scientific reason that the CDC is ignoring me and all the experts I work with?
  5. Questions I'd love to ask Congresswoman Anna Eshoo... that she'll never answer

Questions I’d like to ask the CDC

  1. Why hasn’t anyone calculated the minimum VAERS under-reporting factor (URF)?
  2. Did the propensity to report change in 2021 vs. previous years. What is the new number in 2021 and 2022 compared to previous years?
  3. Why do John Su and Tom Shimabukuro never talk about the URF in the ACIP meetings?
  4. I found thousands of adverse events that are elevated by these vaccines compared to all other vaccines combined in previous years. How many adverse events did the CDC find?
  5. There was a dramatic rise in adverse events reported in the VAERS system for the COVID vaccines. How could this not be a serious safety concern? The propensity to report did not increase. If you believe the propensity to report did increase, what data do you have to support that?
  6. My neurologist has been in practice for 11 years. She’s never had to report a single event to VAERS. With the COVID vaccines, she needs to make 1,000 reports. How do you explain this?
  7. The NEJM pregnancy paper by Tom Shimabukuronoted that the results on safety for pregnant women was preliminary since many of the women were still pregnant. What was the final result and why wasn’t it published?
  8. There was an analysis of the VAERS data by Hannah Rosenblumpublished in the Lancet. It never goes into explaining why there were elevated reporting rates and also the nature of the reported events are not normal background events. Couldn’t the elevated reporting rates be caused by a dangerous vaccine? Does she want to look at the Israeli safety data? If not, why not? The Israeli data directly contradicts the conclusion of the paper. Shouldn’t we figure out which conclusion is correct?
  9. Why does Carol Crawford not answer my questions about an open discussion with the top vaccine misinformation spreaders to resolve our differences and reduce vaccine hesitancy?
  10. Why does Martha Sharan ignore my emails and phone messages when I attempted to ask for permission to talk to the authors of the Rosenblum paper? Can’t she reply with the reason questions are not allowed?

The unanswered questions

Questions I’d love to get the answer to. These were asked, but never answered.

  1. Why did the CDC never publish the follow up on the NEJM pregnancy paper by Tom Shimabukuro?
  2. The CEO of Moderna was asked how the 19 nucleotide sequence from a Moderna patent got into the SARS-CoV-2 genome. That sequence is never found in a virus. How did it get in this one? The CEO said he’d look into it, but never reported the explanation. I’d love to know what it was.
  3. Why hasn’t any Democratic committee chairman asked the NIH for Tony Fauci’s unredacted emails? Don’t we want to know the truth about whether there was a deliberate cover-up? If there was, shouldn’t Fauci be fired?
  4. Fauci wasn’t supposed to be funding gain of function research but he was. How is he being held accountable?
  5. How much is Fauci making every time someone gets a Moderna shot? He’s a public official… why is this a secret?

Debates

People who disagree with the mainstream narrative are rewarded with censorship, permanent bans on posting on social media, demonetization of your YouTube account, revocation of your medical license, revocation of your medical certifications, loss of hospital privileges, loss of job, loss of funding, loss of friends, and a Wikipedia entry labelling you a “misinformation spreader” and/or “conspiracy theorist.”

This is a problem. I am not aware of any paper published in the medical literature that shows that such tactics result in better health decisions.

Should we use the same rules at the UN when nations disagree? Do you think that will result in better outcomes?

The way people resolve differences is by confronting the issues and talking through them. But we are not doing this:

  1. Why can't we find anyone who will defend the CDC, FDA, and NIH on camera?
  2. Byram Bridle and 2 colleagues challenged Canada's health authorities to a debate
  3. Vinay Prasad's most important op-ed

Articles about the corruption of science

  1. The head of the CDC's outside committee on vaccine safety does not want to see the safety data collected by the Israeli Ministry of Health.

This is objective proof of a broken system. It is indefensible. Caught on video camera. There is no reason that anyone in a position of authority on the COVID vaccines would refuse an opportunity to see the most thorough post-vaccine safety study ever done: one that shows causality of serious adverse events.

Professor Grace Lee should be removed from her position by the CDC. Why isn’t she? Does anyone care?

Meta-collections

If the above isn’t enough, there are hundreds more “hard to explain” data points.

  1. List of over 1,200 papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals
  2. The safe and effective narrative is falling apart
  3. Think we got it wrong?
  4. How the authorities can INSTANTLY stop the spread of "COVID misinformation"

Using all the available evidence

There is an excellence article written in August 2020 by Norman Doidge entitled “Medicine’s Fundamentalists” which talks about the “all-available-evidence approach.” It should be read by every doctor in America. This is how medical science should work.

The precautionary principle of medicine

The precautionary principle medicine seems to have been thrown under the bus during the pandemic. It says in the face of uncertainty, one should take reasonable measures to avoid threats that are serious and plausible.

For example, the Pfizer clinical trial showed the vaccine saved only one COVID death per 22,000 injected. That means we might only save around 10,000 lives if we inject 200M Americans. So if VAERS, which is at least 41 times under reported, is showing over 12,000 deaths associated the vaccine, any reasonable person should say that killing more than 41 people to save 1 life is nonsensical… shouldn’t we put a PAUSE on this intervention until we resolve the uncertainty?

In the current system, questioning the CDC or other authorities results in serious retribution as mentioned earlier.

Is that really the right way to handle scientific dissent?

Summary

Are the vaccines “safe and effective” as claimed?

To answer this, science requires that we look all all the available data and see whether the data is more consistent with the hypothesis of “safe and effective” or “not safe and effective.”

All the data that I and my colleagues have seen end up being placed in the “not” bucket.

We are open to being shown we got it wrong on the hundreds of pieces of evidence we have examined, but nobody is willing to discuss the data with us to resolve the issue, not even for $1M dollars.

I even went to extraordinary lengths to offer the Israeli safety data to ACIP Chair Grace Lee. Her response: she called the police on me. That pretty much tells you everything you need to know: they simply refuse to look at any data that goes against their currently held beliefs. That’s the way science works.

Please share this widely.”

Please to do so Steve; great work!

 

 

Comments

No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Monday, 05 December 2022