by Steve Kirsch, Steve Kirsch’s newsletter:
The data is clear and consistent. I challenge any qualified scientist to challenge this data in an open public debate.
Executive summary
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Over 10,000 readers responded.
The survey clearly showed that the COVID vaccines have killed 3.5 times as many people as COVID. This is a disaster.
I’ve had expert statisticians and epidemiologists review the survey, the methodology, and the results. None could find any errors.
I’m willing to put a million dollars on the table that this is right and that the vaccines have killed more people than COVID. Any takers? If not, why not?
When I called Professor Norman Fenton and informed him of the 3.5X figure he calmly replied “I’m not surprised.”
The results of this survey are entirely consistent with the surveys by others as well as individual anecdotes that would have been very unlikely for me to have located if the vaccine didn’t kill at least 3.5X more people than the virus.
Therefore accusations of “the survey was biased” are simply “hand-waving” arguments with absolutely no evidentiary basis of support. Could there be bias? Of course. Is the bias significant is the question! Since these people are anti-vaxxers, they are simply less likely to vaccinate and so the number of vaccine injuries will be LOWER than an unbiased group who vaccinates. So yes, there may be bias, but if anything the bias suggests that the actual ratio is higher than 3.5. I’m happy to have that discussion. Bring it on.
The best way to challenge these results is to show data that is 100% independently verifiable (which government statistics are not). So they will have to show us their survey and their verifiable anecdotes supporting their hypothesis. No one has any interest in doing that for some reason. These people are all perfectly content with having the number be “unknown.” I have a big problem with that.
Finally, if any epidemiologist(s) with a h-index of 20 or more wants to publicly challenge the 3.5X result in an open public discussion, it’s easy to contact me. The h-index is simply a way to ensure we have a meaningful level of discourse. The people on my side of the debate table will have a combined h-index of over 100.
Important statement by UK Professor Norman Fenton concerning this research
Professor Fenton’s h-index is 65.
Professor Fenton’s research on the UK government data revealed their data was flawed and it still is today. The UK ONS, the government agency responsible for the data, publicly acknowledged that they were mistaken and that Professor Fenton was correct.
Fenton’s group was the only team in the world to publicly call out the data as flawed and get a confirmation from the government authority that they were correct.
So it is safe to say that Professor Fenton is more qualified than most people to opine on data quality issues.
Here’s what he said about this research:
The data
Having record level data available where every record can be independently verified is critical. The other critical thing is making all the record level data publicly available.
I’ve done both. The health authorities NEVER do either.
Here are the links:
- The announcement
- The survey
- The survey responses (over 10,000)
- The Excel analysis of the first 9,620 responses which shows the responses are consistent with a Poisson distribution and also that hundreds of random 10% draws from the data do not change the outcome that the vaccines have killed at least 2.5X more people than COVID.
The survey had 10,000 responses.
Analysis of the first 9,620 found 804 deaths from COVID and 2,830 deaths from the COVID vaccine. Those results were generated from a minimum of 108,000 people covered by the survey (some extended families were over 25 people and the survey didn’t track this so the number of total family members covered by the survey is a lower bound). We also didn’t ask about the age of each family member as this would have made the survey unmanageable. We were primarily interested in simply the ratio of COVID deaths to vaccine deaths in the extended family (excluding the immediate household). The reason for excluding the immediate household is to reduce the bias effect since most of the respondents didn’t vaccinate themselves or their household. This is reflected in the lower ratio for the household statistics (and even then, the vaccines killed more people than COVID which is astonishing).
Read More @ kirschsubstack.com
