Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

Attempts to debunk my "Moderna and Pfizer are kill shots" post fail badly

I'll summarize the arguments and show you the data so you can decide for yourself

Steve Kirsch Jul 18

READ IN APP

Executive summary

Three attacks have surfaced attempting to find a flaw in my Moderna/Pfizer analysis.

I’ll show you in this article why all three fall flat.

Also, the attackers are not calling for data transparency. They also attempt to change the topic when confronted with questions they find uncomfortable.

Attack references

So you can see their arguments first-hand and decide for yourself:

1. Real Truther and be sure to see this post showing how he keeps changing the topic

2. Professor Jeffrey Morris posts

Argument #1: OK, you’re right. Moderna has higher mortality but that’s because it’s less effective in preventing COVID deaths, not because it is increasing ACM.

This is easily debunked using the chart that the Real Truther used to demand I retract my analysis which he lifted from Henjin’s analysis:

The gap between Moderna and Pfizer is steady, even when there is no COVID. The Real Truther didn’t notice that. Now he wants to run away when I ask him to explain how that is safe.

The blue is Pfizer. Red is Moderna.

Truther never bothered to check the dates when COVID deaths were near zero in the Czech Republic. But I did.

And guess what?

The distance between the curves remains steady during times of very high COVID and times of no COVID.

That means two things:

1. Moderna is 50% more deadly than baseline ACM (due to the separation during no COVID times). So Truther inadvertently proved Moderna is a train wreck. When I asked him to explain how there could be an ACM differential during no COVID, he wanted to talk about something else.

2. The vaccines were not substantially different in their ability to prevent death. If one were more effective than the other, we’d see the gap narrow or widen during COVID. Which could mean that they worked really well, worked half way, or didn’t work at all.

The bottom line is that because Moderna was 50% higher during non-COVID times, it means the Moderna vaccine increased baseline ACM by 50%. That’s a disaster because vaccines are supposed to reduce ACM, not increase it.

Oh, and I checked this independently as well. See d2-jun21-deaths-filtered-by-month.xlsx in the repo analysis directory.

So thanks to The Real Truther, we can now show the differences were not due to vaccine effectiveness, but were 100% due to increasing ACM from baseline ACM.

This is a train wreck and The Real Truther helped me prove it! Poetic justice.

This is extremely damaging because they can’t explain why there is a difference when there is no COVID.

Nobody’s going to believe the shots reduced ACM. All these funerals that people are going to are of the vaccinated. Check out Jay Bonnar’s friends, all vaccinated, all died unexpectedly, 4 died on the same day as the shot.

Is it possible these shots reduced COVID ACM by equal amounts? Yes, but very unlikely. We have other data like the JAMA VA study and the US Nursing home data that show COVID mortality isn’t improved.

Finally, a 50% differential is just way too big for COVID for younger ages. My Czech friends tell me you can get to 12% if you were 100% effective, no way you can get to 50%.

But since there’s a differential at no COVID, it ends the debate.

Argument #2: The vaccinated have half the all-cause mortality as the vaccinated. The vaccines are saving lives!

The thing they NEVER point out is that the mortality difference is the same during no COVID and high COVID. So it wasn’t the vaccine. It was selection bias.

People who opt for the shots have higher socio-economic status, etc. That is why there is a difference when there is no COVID: the groups are different.

So comparing with the unvaccinated is not the right comparator and is a diversion.

The groups that are the groups who took the shots since they didn’t know what vaccine they were going to get.

Argument #3: There is bias in the convenience sampling. Both vaccines are very safe.

In the absence of any evidence of a systematic bias based on comorbidities, the most likely estimate is even distribution in the aggregate since there is nothing that would favor one brand over the other.

So if it was sampling “chunkiness” we’d expect to see no bias in the aggregate but we’d expect the MRR to be >1 in as many age groups as <1.

If it was sampling bias, we’d surely see at least one in 10 of the points that are strongly the other way.

Virtually all the MRRs are >1. So we have to discard that hypothesis since it just doesn’t fit the observed data.

We also have confirmation from v-safe that Moderna, on a per shot basis, produced significantly more serious adverse events. You can see from the dashboard that Moderna has more serious events reported than Pfizer even though 40% or so of the shots were Moderna.

We have confirmation in VAERS as well as I pointed out in the main article.

We have biological plausibility for all this: the amount of mRNA was over 50% higher for Moderna as I’ve pointed out in the main article.

And finally we have this nice note from Norman Fenton that the same was found in the UK.

So everywhere we’re seeing a greater number of adverse events caused by Moderna.

Professor Morris just can’t seem to accept that. He wants us to ignore that and prove that the effect cannot be due to sampling bias.

It could be, but the probability is very low since the numbers were so one-sided.

I’ve asked Professor Morris, “Why don't you show me a real life example where convenience sampling showed mortality rates were always higher, up to 2X and never a single age group where it was 2x the other way?”

So there is nothing to support convenience bias as the most likely explanation, and everything consistent with “it’s a more deadly shot due to the higher amount of poison in each shot.” That’s why I reject the convenience sampling bias argument: the data and the evidence just doesn’t support it.

Pfizer is nearly as unsafe as Moderna on a per shot basis

The Czech data shows, at best, Pfizer is completely safe and Moderna is a disaster.

But one look at the V-safe data shows Pfizer cannot be safe.

If the vaccines were safe, we wouldn’t have an 8% serious adverse event reporting rate in V-safe, something the government tried to hide from us. If Pfizer was safe, nearly all these V-safe reports would be from Moderna. But they aren’t. A slight majority are from Moderna, even though Modera was 40% of the vaccine delivered.

So make no mistake… both vaccines are deadly. These people simply cannot explain the v-safe data if the vaccines are both safe.

Summary

All the people attacking my analysis are not interested in the truth. If they were, they’d be calling for data transparency.

And they’d provide evidence in the data supporting their claims. Where is the example of convenience sampling causing all MRR’s to be >1? They tend to change the topic when challenged on their attacks. And they avoid answering pointed questions such as you see here where “Truther” keeps wanting to change the topic when he can’t answer a simple question that proves he’s wrong.

The single best fair comparison we have today is the mortality comparison by brand. Yet nobody wants to see or compute this number for other countries. Why not?

They want you to focus on the vaccinated die at half the rate of the unvaccinated, and want you to ignore the fact that it happens when there is no COVID around.

They just can’t accept the data in plain sight. They are deliberately trying to mislead people into believing a fairy tale. Don’t fall for it.

Share