I actually have not been silent on URF 41x, I always thought it was low ball and on the very very very conservative side. I’ve measured this 41x from every angle and my best rebuttal doesn’t have to do with math at all, but rather CDC’s change in the rules. You see back when the Harvard Pilgrim Study came out in early 2011 see HERE, that’s when the CDC changed their rules and began publishing ONLY INITIAL REPORTS!
So now the question must be asked, well how many people that were alive when reports were submitted but are now since DEAD? Huge paradigm shift to the URF wouldn’t you say?
“Interval is 0” will return only those reports that qualify by having a vax date and a onset set date recorded in applicable fields.
Have you ever asked yourself how many reports DO NOT have a vaxx date and/or onset date recorded, but is properly recorded or described in the summary narrative?
So 8-9% of all reports have no vax or onset date. The percentage only gets worse when asking to exclude any report missing one or the other!
Also shaving off deaths for background deaths and the old people that would have died anyways or were on their way out like in palliative care when they received their depop shot, I don’t subscribe to either. Rob a day of life from someone and it’s still murder.
41x is a very conservative number, but in my opinion there is conservative and then not even in the same zip code? I think you can double the URFx41 just asking how many people are now since dead but were alive when reports were submitted? Forget the bundling of multiple deaths on a single report, forget any valid deaths that may have been deleted, forget the throttling and whatever inventory CDC is still sitting on, forget the family members that can’t distinguish between their ass and their elbow that these are vaccine deaths not long covid, or diabetes, or age, or some comorbidity. Forget about V-safe running interference on VAERS. This is murder. The Harvard Pilgrim Study didn’t have to deal in this new paradigm and 99x maybe antiquated and obsolete as well? Heck if you outlive your usefulness, you will be considered obsolete too! This Chatham House Rules bullshit is over, as far as I’m concerned.
We will never be able to quantify the people that one or two depop shots a year or two ago, but are dying now. Tragic. Natural background deaths is like using the MMR vaccine as the placebo arm, they have been killing us slowly this whole time!? Anybody who is still trying to improve the tech or the formulation or “believes” in safe vaccines is either in politics, getting paid or getting played.
All that calculation is too much work for me. I just take the CDC at their word. On their website, they said the incidence of anaphylaxis was 2-5 per million. I assume they got that from VAERS. The Mass General rate was 3/10,000, or 1:3,333. Simple math says CDC is under-counting by 60-150. Pick the middle; that's a URF of 105.
Anaphylaxis, a severe type of allergic reaction, following administration of COVID-19 vaccination is rare and has occurred in approximately 2 to 5 people per million vaccinated in the United States
[CDC has since backpedaled; this now reads "approximately 5 cases per one million doses", I'm guessing because of the scrutiny. Perhaps archive has a copy of the old text. Note too they now say "doses" rather than "vaccinated", so it is a double-backpedal, which I just noticed right now.]
Yes that would skew the numbers but who says 30% of total shots in UK were saline? I find that unlikely. You would spot a saline vial immediately. Saline solution looks nothing like colloidal suspension.
The same would apply to New Zealand. Low dose shots, delivering potentially a much slower demise favouring depressed innate immunity, neurodegenerative and autoimmune conditions.
Hey Albert,
I made this stack into a concise little piece leaving out Kirsch because I thought your explanation for regular people is brilliant.
I didn't change anything, just omitted stuff.
*****************************************************************************************************************
I actually have not been silent on URF 41x, I always thought it was low ball and on the very very very conservative side. I’ve measured this 41x from every angle and my best rebuttal doesn’t have to do with math at all, but rather CDC’s change in the rules. You see back when the Harvard Pilgrim Study came out in early 2011 see HERE, that’s when the CDC changed their rules and began publishing ONLY INITIAL REPORTS!
So now the question must be asked, well how many people that were alive when reports were submitted but are now since DEAD? Huge paradigm shift to the URF wouldn’t you say?
“Interval is 0” will return only those reports that qualify by having a vax date and a onset set date recorded in applicable fields.
Have you ever asked yourself how many reports DO NOT have a vaxx date and/or onset date recorded, but is properly recorded or described in the summary narrative?
So 8-9% of all reports have no vax or onset date. The percentage only gets worse when asking to exclude any report missing one or the other!
Also shaving off deaths for background deaths and the old people that would have died anyways or were on their way out like in palliative care when they received their depop shot, I don’t subscribe to either. Rob a day of life from someone and it’s still murder.
41x is a very conservative number, but in my opinion there is conservative and then not even in the same zip code? I think you can double the URFx41 just asking how many people are now since dead but were alive when reports were submitted? Forget the bundling of multiple deaths on a single report, forget any valid deaths that may have been deleted, forget the throttling and whatever inventory CDC is still sitting on, forget the family members that can’t distinguish between their ass and their elbow that these are vaccine deaths not long covid, or diabetes, or age, or some comorbidity. Forget about V-safe running interference on VAERS. This is murder. The Harvard Pilgrim Study didn’t have to deal in this new paradigm and 99x maybe antiquated and obsolete as well? Heck if you outlive your usefulness, you will be considered obsolete too! This Chatham House Rules bullshit is over, as far as I’m concerned.
We will never be able to quantify the people that one or two depop shots a year or two ago, but are dying now. Tragic. Natural background deaths is like using the MMR vaccine as the placebo arm, they have been killing us slowly this whole time!? Anybody who is still trying to improve the tech or the formulation or “believes” in safe vaccines is either in politics, getting paid or getting played.
https://welcometheeagle.substack.com/p/this-vaers-death-report-is-a-guinness#media-9ffcd430-47b6-4887-8519-7aa8b2f5c1f4
Very well done. From curiosity only what does Steve think about your somewhat conservative estimation?
Kirsch is gatekeeper. Absolutely no doubt about it in my mind.
All that calculation is too much work for me. I just take the CDC at their word. On their website, they said the incidence of anaphylaxis was 2-5 per million. I assume they got that from VAERS. The Mass General rate was 3/10,000, or 1:3,333. Simple math says CDC is under-counting by 60-150. Pick the middle; that's a URF of 105.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html
Anaphylaxis, a severe type of allergic reaction, following administration of COVID-19 vaccination is rare and has occurred in approximately 2 to 5 people per million vaccinated in the United States
[CDC has since backpedaled; this now reads "approximately 5 cases per one million doses", I'm guessing because of the scrutiny. Perhaps archive has a copy of the old text. Note too they now say "doses" rather than "vaccinated", so it is a double-backpedal, which I just noticed right now.]
If there are errors in Steve Kirsch's calculations, I remember his asking for people to correct him. Does he need to be corrected?
Q: Has anyone, Steve, you, factored in saline shots? That 30% of the total shots in UK skews the numbers in favor of safer vaccines.
Yes that would skew the numbers but who says 30% of total shots in UK were saline? I find that unlikely. You would spot a saline vial immediately. Saline solution looks nothing like colloidal suspension.
Calling a jab "saline" or placebo is pretty hasty. If you don't grow a 3rd testicle in 10-20yrs, then maybe it was saline...
The same would apply to New Zealand. Low dose shots, delivering potentially a much slower demise favouring depressed innate immunity, neurodegenerative and autoimmune conditions.