P20 New Zealand Data - Steve's Riddle About Victim Ages...
A little Kirsch vindication....
The synopsis on yesterdays article about Kirsch’s victim ages riddle (Part 19) I basically demonstrated and showed how Kirsch’s “age column” was calibrated to the victim’s age at the date of synthesis as opposed to date of vaccination or even date of death where applicable.
There was this Igor Chudov assertion however that I regurgitated without checking myself first, and it sparked Kirsch to ask for further documentation/clarification. It boils down to this:
I need to declare that I went through Igor’s Substack looking for this direct assertion and I couldn’t find it? I only found Igor’s supposed assertion in OpenVAET’s article here:
No biggie, I accept OpenVAET and Igor’s assertion at face value. I was particularly interested in the assertion that 226 rows where the same subject (victim) doesn’t have the same age than in previous row with variations by several decades?
I decided to check myself and Igor’s assertions seem to be true. I’m still working through the data but I have enough to show some observations, give an opinion, and not leave Kirsch hanging with his request of “show me the data”….
I will agree mostly with Igor that there is at least 226 people that don’t have the same “age”, meaning these people have multi line (multiple dose) data and multi-dob’s that can differ by more than a year. I’m not seeing 226 unique victims where there DOB differs several decades. But there certainly are a few and at least one where the DOB is off by 50 years! Here is a short example of twenty victims with these birth date discrepancies…:
The money shot above is actual data from Kirsch’s derivative work with his derivative MRN ID numbers so anybody can authenticate my work. The yellow and red columns are columns I added. The data is organized by MRN small to large, so you can get a sense the image covers the first ~569K victims with basically a 4yrs< DOB error.
Do you see ID# 74286 with that 50 year DOB discrepancy. There is really no obvious clue if this victim is 29 or 79 years old, except realistically if he/she was 79 they would have had their 1st shot much earlier than Sept 2021? Therefore I would make this person a 29 yr old if I were to ethically cleanse the data. In a matter of fact I would generally lean to correct these DOB’s to the more recent, unless some other real world clue jumps out at me like a pediatric dose or something like that.
Now look the row I tagged in red…:
In all this minutiae of up to ~800 victims with these DOB clerical errors, this one ID# 358994 is the only victim that also involved a DEATH. His/her DOB error was off by 1 year so let’s call him an 86yr old, not an 87 year old. That’s it. That’s the bottom line nuts and bolts about this whole exercise. There is basically no material difference especially when all time cohort analysis, dose/death analysis, lot#/death analysis, etc… is always looking at just the deaths from any which direction.
It would be nice to ethically model (cleanse) this data where applicable like these DOB errors, and properly calibrate vax and death ages to Kirsch’s synthesized DOB field instead of Kirsch’s age column which was clearly calibrated to the victims age at/or around when Kirsch hit the magic synthesize button.
I’m not sure if Kirsch or Barry or even Liz Gunn wants it done? I don’t want to trip anybody up. It’s my opinion that this ethically cleansed data would only accentuate a little more what dog shit these vaccines really are. If anything, the biggest change would come from calibrating the vaxx ages and vaxx deaths correctly for us on the outside analyzing Kirsch’s synthesized data dump. From here I think my 10,000 foot eagle eye view about the average age of death in this data being almost 4yrs under New Zealand’s average life expectancy is equally damning as my man Kirsch’s time cohort studies. This ethical modeling (cleansing) would lend to more accurate representation of the younger population and kids, but it still won’t solve the mystery of under represented 0-4yr olds completely.
I know kirsch can argue that he is analyzing the actual data, but even that probably needs a little ethical cleansing, no? I sure hope his team was slick enough the properly calibrate ages at vaccination date, and then pivot a little for the proper age at death. Those are two distinct ages especially when they are dying 6, 9, 12 months out from last vax…
Here is a view of Kiwi car engines that died within 60 days of last top-off.
New Zealand is in trouble like the rest of us if you ask me. God Bless
Please support the Eagle!
Patient 74286 is obviously born in 1994 but someone probably read a handwritten 9 as a 4 when entering it in the computer system. That's my guess. I agree that it should be easy.doable to clean this stuff up.