so i recently e-mailed Steve Kirsch, and told him that his time would be better spent trying to understand the underlying mechanisms for how vaccines cause problems.
steve replied with:
"Iām focused on the data".
"Give me 4 examples of why my knowledge and understanding of vaccines is lacking and why I should focus on that."
So i set out to give 4 examples,
and as usual it got a little longer than requested.
so this is just my first e-mail reply back,
which was just supposed to be:
4 THINGS ABOUT VACCINE DATA
but it became 12 things...
HI Steve,
re: i am focused on the data
the following is not personally directed at you, because i have no idea where you are on your own personal journey into vaccines, or vaccine issues.
but here are "4+ examples" that i would recommend or suggest to any friend or family, who was interested in learning more about vaccine data.
TLDR:
-
THE DATA ARE GARBAGE
-
WE CAN'T VERIFY DATA
-
NO DELINEATION BETWEEN "SAFE" AND "UN-SAFE"
-
NOBODY HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO USE A STUDY TO FIND A VACCINE PROBLEM
-
THE 4 FAVORITE ARGUMENTS OF PRO-VACCINE SIDE:
ANECDOTE, CORELATION, COINCIDENCE, TEMPORAL
6-12) BONUS META-GIGO
- THE DATA ARE ALL GARBAGE !!!
GIGO - Garbage in, Garbage Out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out
there is no such thing as (credible) vaccine safety or efficacy data.
they simply make-up whatever sounds good.
proof?:
before COVID, it was common knowledge that "no vaccine is 100% effective"
after COVID, they came out with a trial that claimed a COVID vaccine was 100% effective, and nobody batted an eyelash. (except me, and you)
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/health/pfizer-vaccine-adolescent-trial-results/index.html
more proof?
August 27, 2014 CDC whistleblower Dr William Thompson's press release:
re CDC omitting SS data from 2004 vaccine autism study published in journal of pediatrics.
https://i.redd.it/1rb482xb9ty41.png
- WE CAN'T "VERIFY VERIFY VERIFY" THE DATA
Brian Deer is the guy who took down Dr Andrew Wakefield
Dr Andrew Wakefield was the research-laboratory-beakers-and-test-tubes type "doctor" who published a study that suggested we look into vaccines and autism.
Brian Deer is the man who bird-dogged Andrew Wakefield for 12 years,
until eventually Wakefield's paper had been RETRACTED with great media fanfare.
and Wakefield has been the go-to FOIL for when vaccine-autism link is brought up
pro-vaccine side: NOPE!!! WAKEFIELD!!!
during this time, it appears that BRIAN DEER was a HATCHET MAN that was assigned to DR WAKEFIELD, and someone paid BRIAN DEER's BILLS, while Brian Deer relentlessly went after Wakefield for 12 years.
it's curious that Brian Deer was praised for (allegedly?) contacting Dr Andrew Wakefield's study participants, and finding discrepancies between what the participants had said, and what Dr Wakefield's (allegedly false) data had shown.
background story here:
Keeping Anderson Cooper Honest: Is Brian Deer The Fraud? Brian Deer is the "journalist" who bird-dogged Dr Wakefield for years after Wakefield published a paper that was unflattering to vaccines
https://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/keeping-anderson-cooper-honest-is-brian-deer-the-fraud.html
more about Brian Deer
https://www.autisminvestigated.com/brian-deer-cnn-bre-payton/
but if you or i would "contact study participants", then that would be considered "harassing" the study participants.
we would be arrested, and publicly ridiculed.
see how that works?
you can never fact-check their so-called data, because YOU are a just a creepy stalker who is bent on harassing anyone who dares to participate in a study!
THEY can't allow YOU to "harass" study participants, because then people would quit participating in studies!
so their "data" are hidden behind bogus "privacy" concerns
market opportunity? open studies. participants agree to make themselves be "open" to inquiry. entire medical history published and open to scrutiny.
- there is no hard-and-fast rule for deciding what is "safe" and what is "NOT safe"
they do a study. they look at the results. they shrug their shoulders and say "meh, looks safe to me"
i have asked numerous pro-vaccine people (internet users, trolls? shills? true believers? scientists?)
they can't show us an example, of what a study might look like, if that study was to have shown that some vaccine was "NOT safe"
during a SCOTUS case, vaccines were deemed to be "UNAVOIDABLY UNSAFE"
- Nobody in the history of the world, has ever been able to use a vaccine study, to find a previously unknown vaccine problem.
because vaccine studies are not do to see "IF" a vaccine causes a problem,
a vaccine study is done for the sole purpose of "NOT finding" a vaccine problem.
and so they say "WE CAN'T FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT VACCINES CAUSE X"
and they TRUMPET their own failure to find evidence, as some sort of VICTORY.
because it is a victory. its what they set out to do, to NOT "find the evidence"
vaccine logic quip:
whenever i can't find my keys, i always assume that means my keys don't exist!
and because nobody has ever been able to use a study to find a vaccine problem, it is assumed that every vaccine is arbitrarily deemed "safe"
then, since the "consensus" of studies say a vaccine is "safe",
anything that comes along to contradict is already considered an outlier.
THE 4 FAVORITE ARGUMENTS
of the pro-vaccine side are:
ANECDOTE, COINCIDENCE, TEMPORAL, CORRELATION.
your "empirical" evidence is merely "anecdotal".
they are coincidence theorist, but you are conspiracy theorist.
vaccine logic: your anecdotal temporal spurious correlations actually preclude causations!
temporal association: just because vaccine came before high fever, doesn't mean vaccine caused high fever.
could be genetic? (shrugs shoulders)
for example:
your "high fever" is just a coincidental, anecdotal, temporal correlation!
and since correlations preclude causation, theres no way the vaccine could have caused your "high" fever!
CONSENSUS DOES NOT MEAN UNANIMOUS
"science" is currently being decided by a vote.
if 50%+1 of voters say the vaccine is safe and effective, that becomes a "consensus"
and everything else is misinformation or disinformation, and subject to censorship
SHOW ME
Missouri: The "SHOW ME" State!
"Show me" can mean many things, to many people
If you say "Show me the data"
and i say THE DATA ARE GIGO
and i say "Show Me" the vaccine injuries,
even though they are "anecdotal"
you start to notice patterns real fast.
"FEVER" is an excellent example,
because everyone understands how to measure fever with thermometer.
and everyone know the difference between 98.6F and 106F
if you were to only follow ONE thing, i would make it FEVER.
fever is the gateway to understanding other vaccine-induced problems.
SHOW ME WHERE 5% STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE COMES FROM
SHOW ME the actual math, like pencil on paper, for homework, turned in for a grade kind of SHOW ME.
The truth is, the 5% threshold for "statistics significance" is arbitrarily selected by the study authors, based on nothing more than their own arbitrary preferences, biases, assumptions, habits,
They could pick some other number, other than 5%, if they wanted to. its completely an arbitrary decision, decided unilaterally by the study author.
HOW "PEER REVIEW" ACTUALLY WORKS:
IF study shows vaccines are GOOD,
THEN study is a GOOD study.
IF study shows vaccines are BAD,
THEN study is a BAD study
Because of the GATEKEEPERS,
Your (vaccine critical) studies will NOT get published,
Unless your study goes along with the "consensus" of the vaccine establishment,
This perpetuates the status quo.
- META-GIGO
So even when they do a so-called "META STUDY" they are only including studies that made it past the gatekeepers.
META STUDY: MORE GARBAGE IN, MORE GARBAGE OUT
WITH VACCINES, IT'S BEST TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION.
since it is impossible to know anything for sure, about vaccines,
the best course of action, and avoid vaccines altogether!
- The So-Called "Danish Study" was a FRAUD
POUL THORSEN HAS HIS OWN "WANTED BY FBI" POSTER
Here are my thoughts on this, and it has no reflection whatsoever on your journey, or your questions. Good energy in your post.
I think all efforts, thus far, have been attempting...essentially...to intellectualize this thing to death. Was there or was there not a virus? Where did it originate? Did the pharmaceutical companies fail to put warnings inside the vial boxes? That sort of thing.
Then there's the vaxx, which is, I think, your area of focus. Many studies I've seen thus far examine whether or not the vaxx is "effective" against the virus. But wait a minute! Has it been proven that there was actually a unique pathogen, or were statistics manipulated from other causative factors to create the appearance of a pandemic? This direction easily gets lost in the weeds, so to speak.
There have been several people trying to shed light on the criminal side of this thing, and, IMO, this is the direction that will ultimately provide results. Show how VAERS has been under-reported, again and again. Then again, for those who are doubtful. Show how records have been removed from VAERS, to stall the increase in death statistics. No more reporting on "all death" statistics...let's start reporting on the death rates of children from myocarditis and stroke. Then athletes. Then young adults.
Dr. Yeadon's recent statement https://www.bitchute.com/video/r6Y4p9mchc0T/ in this direction is a good start. Let's start sowing the seeds of fear, just like they've done to the world. Fear is a powerful motivator. Curiosity/intellect is not. I must say that I am disappointed that the attorney from Germany (forget his name at the moment) has failed to get much traction from his mock "crimes against humanity" angle. There are a lot of good people trying, and failing, to push back against the tide of acceptance and "pharma is right."
I apologize I have not put as much thought into my post as you did into yours. Just some ideas perhaps to add to your communication with Kirsch.
I think Reiner Fuellmich is the attorney of which you spoke.
Yes, that's him.
I applaud your direct and persistent work. This response is wonderful; I hope it makes the desired impact.
That said, I think that before sending a similar one next time, it's worth sitting on whatever you write for at least a day or two, and make it shorter. This is not a criticism, but merely a suggestion for better results. You are already doing fantastic without suggestions, but since you opened it up, that's my 2 cents.
Another thing that occurs to me that might be helpful, and that speaks directly to his question is that there are a number of good reports on the Covid vax that highlight the 2-week post-vax window where they eliminate bad reactions by purposefully defining them as being unrelated. That would be a good bit of evidence, as in: we can prove this happened for the Covid vax, but for other vaccines we can only demonstrate how data was excluded, and we cannot obtain the actual data, only proving that the data is intentionally hidden. Searching for data that is destroyed will yield bad results. Anyway, I hope that makes sense, and maybe helps for the next time.
Again, thanks for pushing this.
I echo the suggestion to sit on it and make it shorter. A guy like him with a background in VC wants short and concise.
An old boss of mine told me if I wanted to get his attention on something, I had to make it fit in the email window so he wasn't scrolling. Otherwise I wrote too much. Over the years, that has been good advice. The goal is to peak their interest to get them to engage further. The fact he responded is great. But don't drop all your candy in the lobby. Give him a couple of bites and leave him wanting more. š
after getting 8 vaccinations for my work, I noticed it messed me up.
I didn't get any more vaccinations after 2018
take the studies and shove them, I have the real data from real 1st person experimentation
and I listened to (2) people I trusted, I didn't get the vaccine and it didn't mess me up.
Dear lord! What in the world do you do that requires you to get 8 vaccinations, and which vaccines did you get?
In many hospitals and large health care orgs, nurses have been pressured to get annual vaccines for many years. Don't know about others, but that's my guess.
That would make sense. I was thinking they meant 8 different types of vaccines taken close together. Not one type of vaccine once a year for 8 years. Thanks.
i will give you one. you can guess the rest. MMR
What would excite me most w/respect to Steve is to hear he acquired the means to fund his own studies.
It's time to move away from the ivory tower, smoky backroom traditions of legacy science and bring lean, open source methodologies into play.
All tax-funded study data should be published.
All tax-funded study methods and algorithms should be published.
All data transformation steps should be published, starting from raw data sources. The public should be able to repeat study results step-by-step from raw primary data sources.
Study participants should be able to discuss their experiences and relate their confidence in the methodology and conduct of the study operators. We hear a lot of very troubling stories about how legacy medical companies conduct the studies that FDA/CDC/NIH blindly rely on.
It should be illegal to censor debate on the benefits and validity of tax-funded studies.
Golden
Huge Kirsch fan here. Been following him since he broke through with his infamous TrialSite article back in 2020. I read every substack, have contributed financially, and applaud him at every turn. He is an uber normie but does mostly good work.
As with all these influential folks, important to also hear their critics:
https://open.substack.com/pub/charleswright1/p/the-duality-of-steve-kirsch-remdesivir?r=pezuu&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
https://starkmanapproved.com/steve-kirschs-deceptive-vaccine-truths/
https://open.substack.com/pub/2ndsmartestguyintheworld/p/update-steve-kirsch-is-dead-wrong?r=pezuu&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
P.S. Thanks for the Poul Thorsen "Wanted Poster".
Agree
Thanks for sharing this. I agree with it all and feel better-informed for having read it, but still feel that it is unnecessarily tedious. Whenever I find myself getting drawn into the fine details of this topic, it starts to get absurdly ambiguous and tenuously tethered to unproven theories which are founded upon other unproven theories. By pulling back and looking only at known information, I always come back to the simple fact that we are animals living in nature and we have survived a very long time without pharmaceuticals. I see no reason to intervene in something that has a track record so exemplary.