One of the downsides of telling the truth in this environment is that it seems everyone and their brother wants to tear all your arguments to shreds.
I could spend full time just refuting all the hit pieces written about the content I’ve produced. Here’s my fact check of the fact checkers as a repurposed graphic:
Rather than address every point of every fact check, here is a checklist for things that a thorough fact checker should be able to answer, but can’t or won’t.
Note that this is a quick list I put together in about 30 minutes. There are more, but you get the idea:
- What is my motivation for suddenly, at age 65, becoming a spreader of misinformation and conspiracy theories? And why did it only happen right after hearing about my friends who had died or been disabled by the COVID vaccines? Do you even know me or have we ever met?
- Why is there a 44% increase in child deaths after the jabs rolled out? According to the fact checkers, it should have gone down since vaccines are supposed to save lives. What’s going on? Is the data just not cooperating with the narrative?
- How is it that a nurse for 14 years only starts seeing myocarditis in kids after the vaccine rollout and not during COVID. I thought every says that the rates from the vaccine are MUCH lower than from COVID. Got any examples of the rates going down?
- How do you explain the sudden surge in forecasted demand here? What is causing this? This is a dramatic increase.
- Dr. Toby Rogers computed 117 deaths per kid saved in ages 5 to 11? Do you agree with his analysis? 20,000 people read that article and couldn’t find a hole. So where did he go wrong and how can be sure you got it right and he got it wrong?
- If the vaccines are as safe like you say, then how can Dr. Charles Hoffe find D-dimers significantly elevated in over 50% of his patients after the jab? If it isn’t 50%, then what is the real number and for how long? Does it trouble you at all that we don’t know what those numbers are?
- Isn’t the amount of spike caused by the vaccine many times that what you would get from the virus? And aren’t you getting all this spike a LOT faster than you would if you got the virus?
- If the vaccines are perfectly safe, then how can troponin, a measure of heart damage, skyrocket to 614 times normal, after vaccination in a 45 year old female? Wasn’t it only supposed to affect teenage boys? Do you think that is a normal reaction? There are huge number of people with elevated troponins after vaccination, 10X heart attack levels, and instead of quickly going back to normal, these levels are elevated for months. Dr. Peter McCullough, one of the world’s most respected cardiologists, is appalled by this. Perhaps you can reference an equally prominent cardiologist who will debate Peter on this? If not, why won’t anyone talk about this? If this isn’t right, then tell us what is the amount of troponin elevation and for how long? Does it trouble you at all that we don’t know what those numbers are? I mean just a little bit troubling???
- If this is all done out of Kirsch’s ego as determined in this fact check, then how is it that 30 other scientists, statisticians, and doctors all agree with him? Why did all of these people suddenly become conspiracy theorists? What’s their motivation for all the fraud and deception? And what ties all these people together? Why would Peter Doshi, associate editor of the BMJ, risk his reputation to question what is going on? Peter McCullough? (Answer: It’s pretty simple actually; we all saw the corruption of science and want to save lives. This is really hard for many people to believe and accept. We get that.)
- Bret Weinstein knew he risked being de-platformed from YouTube (his top income source at the time) if he brought Kirsch and Malone on his show. Why did he do it? (Answer: he was willing to risk his career to get the truth out)
- Why does Dr. Chris Martenson make all these YouTube videos showing the vaccines don’t work, masks don’t work, etc. What’s his motivation for spreading misinformation (Answer: Chris is one of the rare scientists who takes a critical look at the data and is guided by the data and not what people say about the data.)
- Dr. Robert Malone was nominated for a Nobel prize for inventing the mRNA vaccine. Why would he completely jeopardize his chances of winning by “going rogue” and speaking out about the dangers of these vaccines? He’s not getting paid by anyone to do this. Why is he doing it?
- Ron Kostoff never talked to any of us prior to his paper appearing in Toxicology Reports. If we are wrong about this, how did Ron figure it out on his own that the vaccines were nonsensical for every age group and get his paper published in a peer-reviewed medical journal? It has not been retracted. Isn’t that problematic?
- If the vaccines are safe, how come Alex Berenson also thinks the vaccines are unsafe? Is he a crackpot too? Isn’t it unfair just to attack Kirsch? Berenson and Kirsch hardly ever talk, yet came to the same conclusions about vaccines, that the NIH ignored early treatment, the lack of any science behind masking, the irresponsibility of mandates, etc.
- Why not pick on Del Bigtree? He found the same things Kirsch did. In fact, Bigtree’s attorney calculated a VAERS URF of 50 well before Kirsch did. So why pick on Kirsch? Kirsch just followed on Aaron Siri’s work and refined the number. Why not attack Siri? And how come the CDC couldn’t respond to Siri’s letter on this?
- Any legit fact checker would prioritize fact checking the biggest lies of the pandemic such as the virus had a natural origin, the number of people killed by COVID is so large (it’s a fraction of that), that the vaccine hasn’t killed anyone, and that masks are effective. Have you fact checked all those first? Those are the most important.
- If the fact checker uses a pseudonym, why can’t you tell us what your name is? Are you going to tell us who funded you to do the hit piece?
- Wasn’t it irresponsible for the CDC to recommend vaccination for pregnant women before the data was available? They relied on the NEJM paper, which we finally convinced the NEJM that they were wrong (it took months). So we were right and they were wrong. Do we get any credit in your mind when they finally recanted?
- Will you debate us in a recorded zoom call where you can answer all our questions? We are eager to find out how we were fooled by all this data. The debate rules are posted in plain sight.
- If the vax is so safe, why are there so many death entries in VAERS this year?
- If Kirsch is wrong on his analysis, how come you can’t point out where in his analysis he got it wrong? Was the URF computed wrong? Are the VAERS deaths wrong? Did he not subtract out sufficient number of background events? The point is if you want to show he’s wrong, you should show the error he made. Using arguments of where did they hide the bodies just shows you are incapable of finding the bodies; it doesn’t prove Kirsch got it wrong.
- If you think there is simply “over-reporting” in VAERS this year what is your actual evidence of that? All the people we talked to are reporting more events because there are more events happening. In fact, most people report that there are at least 100X more events this year than previous years. So it seems like VAERS is actually under-reported this year, and not over-reported, don’t you think?
- There are 5,288 symptoms that haven’t been reported for ANY vaccine in the last 5 years that are being reported for the first time in these vaccines. Why?
- Why are there more adverse event reports this year than for every vaccine in the last 30 years combined?
- If the vaccine didn’t cause death in VAERS, then how come there is a temporal association between vaccination date and deaths? Oh, you think it is due to likelihood to report is higher the closer it is to vax date? Interesting! Then how do you explain the fact that the reports peak on day 1 after vax, rather than on day 0? A bit hard to explain, don’t you think? And isn’t it interesting that the Day 1 peak just happens to coincide with the mechanism of action of the vaccine?
- Don’t you think that we should have safety data on the amount, distribution, and duration of the spike protein that is produced BEFORE we started experimenting on the public? Do you even know this data? Shouldn’t we know it? Why were the studies never done on NHPs to find this data?
- If the URF isn’t 41, what is the true URF and did you calculate it using the CDC-approved methodology like we did? (see The reporting sensitivity of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for anaphylaxis and for Guillain-Barré syndrome). And even if the URF is 1 (which would be highly unlikely), the sheer number of deaths is still huge and the trial should be halted per Paul Offit’s remarks on 60 Minutes about the smallpox vaccine. Even at a URF of 1, these vaccines are still 40X more dangerous than smallpax (8500/220).
- If we got it wrong, then tell us: How many people do you estimate have been killed by the COVID vaccines and how do you know?
- One of the ways we computed the number of deaths from the vaccine was using independent polling company. How was that gamed?
- Why are athletes dropping by a 60X rate after the vax rollout?
- How did Ernest Ramirez’s 16 year old son die? Did you look at the autopsy report like our team member Peter McCullough did. More importantly, why did the press not cover it? It was a clear case of vaccine caused death. There was an autopsy to prove it. No coverage. And do you think it was right for GoFundMe to seize the funds he raised? Is that OK with you? Is that the new way we are supposed to treat people today?
- How do you explain the causes of death of the 14 cases the CDC examined? 5 of them died from cardiac arrest!
- How does he explain the results of Peter Schirmacher?
- Why did Taiwan report more deaths from the vaccine than from COVID?
- Why is the line slope going the wrong way in the Harvard study?
- How do you explain that the biodistribution showing accumulation in the ovaries correlate with the high numbers of VAERS symptoms for menstrual problems many with huge elevations compared to baseline (previous vaccines).
- Why are cardiologists reporting highly elevated # of cases of heart disease in kids after the vax rolled out?
- Why is the cardio testing lab at UCSF now filled with kids 7 to 10 only AFTER the vaccines rolled out for that age range?
- Why is a top California neurologist needing to report 2,000 VAERS events this year when in the last 11 years she’s never need to report a single adverse event?
- How do we explain the families where 3 relatives, all previously healthy, die within days after the COVID shot?
- How did 2 cricket players recently vaccinated drop on the field within 10 minutes of each other? Bad luck?
- Why does the CDC *REFUSE* to calculate and use the proper URF for VAERS when interpreting the safety data? Pfizer PROVED that VAERS is 5X underreported for myocarditis, and the CDC will not even acknowledge that? John Su is using a URF of 1. That is clearly false and misleading. Why are you not going after him? That is truly evil and corrupt. I’m not the bad guy here. This was in plain sight of the public (Pfizer slide with the Optum data (see my article about this).
- How come undertakers report a huge increase in business right after the vaccines rolled out?
- Why aren’t the nursing homes disputing Abrien Aguirre’s account that there were 10 times as many deaths from the vaccines than from COVID?
- How come the CDC hasn’t ascribed even a single death from the vaccines in light of Schirmacher’s study? That’s inexplicable isn’t it?
- Why are there so many vaccine injured people that Facebook had to remove groups of 250,000 and more (multiple times).
- Why aren’t the vaccine injured getting any press?
- Why did YouTube censor Dr. Peter Doshi’s testimony? UCSF Professor Aditi Bhargava spoke as well and was censored. Why? As a fact checker, are you speaking out about the censorship of these highly credible people? Why not? Do you even know why Professor Bhargava transitioned to Emeritus at such a young age? Why are you not telling that story to the public?
- How come Jessica Rose’s myocarditis paper was pulled by the publisher? Are you making a stink about the corruption of science here? Or are you just trying to discredit me?
- What about Maddie de Garay? Why didn’t the FDA, CDC, or Pfizer ever investigate? Why did Janet Woodcock assure me they would and then did nothing? Why didn’t they report the truth and stop the trial on the permanent paralysis. Her result aligns PERFECTLY with the mechanism of action of the drug? How can they have eliminated the vax as the cause without ever talking to her? They are supposed to assume it is the vax until they can show otherwise.
- What about the 5X exclusions (vs placebo group) in the Pfizer trial? That can’t be by chance can it?
- How come there were so few all-cause deaths in the Pfizer study? It was supposed to be a representative group! There should be been around 110 deaths in each group, right?
- How come Pfizer 6 months study shows more all cause deaths in the treatment group in than in the placebo group? Where is the PROOF that the vaccines are saving lives? Whoops!!!! No proof at all of a single life saved. As a fact checker, why aren’t you calling that out? Instead you are targetting me. Hmmmm.
- Why were there 4X as many cardiac arrests in the vax group vs. placebo in the Pfizer Phase 3 study (6 month)? Seems pretty high. It wasn’t just bad luck since we see all these athletes in plain sight dropping. So isn’t it more likely than not this is real?
- Aren’t you concerned that the trials going forward are too underpowered to resolve any of these questions?
- Wasn’t there gaming in the Pfizer Phase 3 trials on adverse event reporting where people found it difficult/impossible to report AEs.
- Despite the gaming of the AE reports, aren’t you alarmed at the statistically significant large increase in overall morbidity in all of the COVID vaccine trials (the paper US COVID-19 Vaccines Proven to Cause More Harm than Good… by J. Bart Classen, MD).
- How come the NIH and WHO did absolutely nothing when the fluvoxamine Phase 3 trial was published in Lancet? They didn’t even note it in the NIH COVID guidelines! Did you protest that? It’s December 2, 2021 and the fluvoxamine recommendation was Last Updated: April 23, 2021. The Lancet article was widely covered by all major media, but the NIH did nothing. How do you explain that? Why not spend your valuable time focusing on that? That would save lives. Also, there was a key opinion leader meeting January 2021 where the NIH, CDC, and FDA experts got on a call and voted that doctors should talk to their patients about fluvoxamine. The NIH guidelines committee ignored the recommendation entirely; treated it as if it had never happened. Why not fact check that?
- How come nobody can cite a SINGLE RCT that shows that masks work against COVID? If you are a legit fact checker, I should be your last priority. The easiest and most obvious one to go after is mask mandates. If you haven’t written about mask mandates yet and gone after them as ludicrous, then you aren’t much of a fact checker, are you?
- How come Professor Jeffrey Morris changed the topic whenever we tried to show him that the symptoms in VAERS were dose dependent? (Note: dose dependency is one of the most impressive indicators of causality, but we use all Bradford-Hill criteria to assess causality).
- So why are the adverse events in VAERS dose dependent? I thought it’s a safe vaccine?!?
- Dr. Steven A. Anderson of the FDA is supposed to be monitoring the VAERS data like a hawk. We have people highly qualified to who have spent months analyzing the VAERS data. Why does Dr. Anderson refuse to meet with us?
- How come the FDA and CDC outside committee members all turned down a $1M research grant just to talk to us for a few hours and answer questions? What are they afraid of?
- If Gavin Newsom is telling the truth that he doesn’t have GBS, then why didn’t he accept Kirsch’s “name your price” bet? Gavin could have doubled his net worth instantly by giving Kirsch a blank piece of paper.
- How come nobody has taken Kirsch up on his $1M offer to disprove Crawford’s analysis? All you have to do it publish the correct analysis of the same data (35% of the world’s population so hardly “cherry picked”).
- If the CDC and FDA members are independent, why did one of them admit in a private conversation that if they didn’t vote the way the FDA /CDC wanted they would be kicked off the committee like Martin Kulldorff?
- If the vaccines are so safe, then why did CDC insiders tip off a friend of mine in January not to get the vaccines?
- If the excess deaths in VAERS was not caused by the vaccine, then what is causing it and why isn’t the CDC investigating? These causes of death were not normal.
- While it is amusing for people to refer to the Mclachlan VAERS study and argue that all the deaths were normal, that’s simply not what the study said. Shall we go through all 250 cases one by one? The paper said “Despite this, there were only 14% of the cases for which a vaccine reaction could be ruled out as a contributing factor in their death.” So it is interesting that some people can definitively state that the vaccine didn’t cause their death. Are these fact checkers willing to go through the cases one by one with Scott and our team and show us all how we got it wrong?
When you find a “fact check” that addresses those 51 questions, that would be great because I have another 130 questions just like those which I’d love to hear them explain as well.
Questions submitted by my readers
From Surya ARBY
slide 12; they say there is no signal because they use a time window based on days 1-21 (with implicit control defined as 22-42 ?)
It’s easy to see there is a HUGE cluster of GBS on days 1-42 (16 cases) using the remaining days 43-98 (2 cases) as control window, it gives an unadjusted Relative Risk of
(16/42) / (2/56) = 10,6.
2/56 gives 1.5/42; so on a standardized time window of 42 days, the number of expected cases is 1.5, it’s easy to use a random variable X following a Poisson distribution with a parameter of 1.5, what’s the probability to observe at least 16 events ? P(X>=16) is so low that my application gives 0
Debunking Steve Kirsch’s latest claims about covid vaccine deaths
Here is the Medium article. Whoever wrote this “fact check” clearly spent a lot of time putting together his case. Basically, this nameless, faceless person claims that Crawford cherry picked data and that the excess death data doesn’t line up with a deadly vaccine. I just learned about this on Dec 1 at 11pm.
The author says my motivation is ego and fame. Wow. This shows you the quality of his work. Is the author willing to challenge my team in a recorded debate? I seriously doubt it. But I’ve got an open invitation to do just that! Let’s find the truth. We are not afraid of a challenge. Is he? If you are “The Gift of Fire,” then please respond in the comments.
He asks in his title: “What motivates a tech millionaire to fight against covid vaccines?” I’d have a lot more respect for him if was able to get that simple question right. But he can’t even get that one right. Everyone who knows me and works with me will tell you the answer: “Mr. Kirsch just wants to save lives.” I would argue if he can’t get something simple like that out, that we should have a lot less confidence in anything else he says.
Our fact checker writes in a second take down piece: “For teenage boys, the myocarditis vs. covid risk gets closer, but getting covid is still worse by a factor of 6.” Wow. Reality check here. Once the vaccines rolled out, docs were seeing more cases of myocarditis, not fewer case. Perhaps our friend can name one cardiologist who shows that myocarditis cases when down significantly after the vaccines rolled out. That’s called a “reality check.”
So rather than spend our time debunking his debunk, I want to issue a challenge to our anonymous “do gooder.” We’ll address all of your points in your article, if you address all the points above all in a LIVE RECORDED zoom call where we can set the record straight.
How about it?
Healthfeedback fact check
Today, for example, someone sent me this link from the “experts” at healthfeedback.org that fact checked two statements that they claim that I made:
- “the ovaries get the highest concentration of [lipid nanoparticles from RNA vaccines]. This turns the ovaries into a very large manufacturing plant to turn out toxic spike protein”
- “FDA experts reveal the Covid-19 Vaccines are killing at least 2 people for every 1 life they save”
The short story is the first statement was taken completely out of context and was referring to a chart that was limited to showing the body parts where we did not expect to see any lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivered. The second was a quote from The Expose that I never claimed. It was their mistake, not mine.
If we address the “context problem” of the first one and they mistake by The Expose in the second one, we are left with:
- When we look at areas of the body where we didn’t expect to see the LNPs, the ovaries has the highest accumulation.
- The VAERS data shows that the vaccines are killing at least 2 people for every life that they might save. It’s not just me that says that. The Walach and Kostoff papers, published in peer reviewed medical journals, say the same thing.
The facts supporting both of these statements are pretty straightforward.
By Steve Kirsch Via https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers