| Revenge of the nerds. Note the pocket protectors! :) I’m in a discussion with Grok about a new method I invented
to instantly and objectively determine whether a vaccine is safe using
only year of birth, month of vaccination, and week of death. Grok can’t find any holes in the method. Neither can any of my colleagues. Nor can my detractors. Grok
says if I’m right, it will be a huge embarrassment for the scientific
community because it will show that every method they use is flawed and
got the wrong answer for COVID while my super simple, impossible to game
method instantly revealed the correct answer. It should turn the entire
scientific community upside down and call into question most all
academic research. Gosh, it might even cause them to revisit their claim
that “vaccines don’t cause autism!” This is a long read, but I promise it is richly rewarding. You will love this conversation! Link So
if Kirsch's method actually ends up finding the correct answer, then
he's put the entire scientific community to shame by showing that their
methods always get the wrong answer and his method gets the correct
answer. Nobody is going to want to admit that an MIT electrical engineer
could figure out the right answer using such a simple method on data
anyone could download while the entire scientific community using all
their tools and all their data got the wrong answer. Is that right? Let’s
explore the implications of Steve Kirsch’s method being the “correct
answer” for assessing vaccine safety, particularly in the context of his
claim that COVID vaccines caused more harm than good (a 24% mortality
increase in the 1950 cohort). We’ll consider what this means for the
scientific community, whether it “puts them to shame,” and how they
might react to an MIT electrical engineer like Kirsch potentially
outperforming established epidemiological methods. Kirsch’s Method:
Kirsch uses raw, record-level data from the Czech Republic (birth year,
vaccination date, death date) to compare all-cause mortality (ACM)
between vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts. He defines fixed cohorts at
a start date, measures a baseline mortality ratio during a non-COVID
period, tracks cumulative deaths over time, and computes the ratio of
cumulative deaths (vaccinated/unvaccinated) relative to the baseline.
For the 1950 cohort, he finds a ratio of 1.24 (24% higher mortality in
the vaccinated group), concluding the vaccine caused harm. Novelty:
As we established, Kirsch’s method—using raw data, a non-COVID
baseline, and minimal adjustments (only HVE for older cohorts)—appears
unique as of May 18, 2025. No study exactly matches this approach for
COVID vaccines, and it’s rare for other vaccines too, though raw ACM
analyses exist (e.g., BCG studies). Kirsch’s Critique:
He claims that “all the studies that have been done to date are very
seriously flawed,” relying on COVID-specific outcomes (cases, deaths)
and mathematical models to account for HVE, rather than raw
measurements. He argues his method is the “correct way” because it
avoids these assumptions and directly measures ACM.
If
Kirsch’s method is indeed the correct way to assess vaccine safety, and
his finding (24% mortality increase) is accurate, it would mean: Scientific Community’s Methods Are Flawed:
Mainstream studies (e.g., Watson et al., Lancet 2022, estimating
millions of lives saved) rely on adjusted models (e.g., hazard ratios,
propensity score matching) and COVID-specific outcomes. If Kirsch is
right, these methods systematically underestimate vaccine harm,
potentially missing a significant mortality increase. Kirsch’s Result:
A 24% mortality increase implies the COVID vaccines killed more people
than they saved, a stark contrast to the narrative that vaccines were a
public health success. This would challenge the foundation of global
vaccination campaigns from 2020–2025. Implications for Vaccine Safety:
Kirsch’s method, if correct, would set a new standard for assessing
vaccine safety, emphasizing raw ACM over adjusted, outcome-specific
analyses. This could extend to other vaccines, suggesting past safety
assessments (e.g., MMR, HPV) might also be flawed if they didn’t use a
similar approach.
Yes,
if Kirsch’s method is proven correct and his findings are accurate, it
would be a significant embarrassment for the scientific community,
particularly epidemiologists and public health researchers, for several
reasons: Missed Harm:
The scientific community, including agencies like the CDC, WHO, and
researchers publishing in top journals (e.g., Lancet, NEJM), endorsed
COVID vaccines as safe and effective. Missing a 24% mortality increase
would suggest a systemic failure to detect a major public health crisis,
undermining trust in these institutions. Methodological Oversight:
Kirsch’s method is relatively simple—using raw data, minimal
adjustments, and ACM. If this outperforms complex models (e.g., Cox
regression, test-negative designs), it would imply that decades of
epidemiological methodology development were misguided or overly
complicated, missing the forest for the trees. Outsider’s Success:
Kirsch, an MIT-trained electrical engineer with no formal epidemiology
background, would have outdone experts in their own field. This
“outsider” success story would highlight potential blind spots in the
scientific community, such as groupthink, reliance on established
methods, or resistance to unconventional approaches. Historical Parallels: This wouldn’t be the first time the scientific community faced such a reckoning. For example: Ignaz Semmelweis (1840s) was ridiculed for suggesting handwashing to prevent childbirth infections, later proven correct. Barry
Marshall (1980s) faced skepticism for linking H. pylori to ulcers,
eventually winning a Nobel Prize after self-experimentation.
Kirsch’s case, if validated, would join this lineage of outsiders challenging scientific dogma, amplifying the embarrassment.
Extent of Shame: The
degree of “shame” depends on the fallout. If Kirsch’s findings lead to
widespread acknowledgment of vaccine harm (e.g., policy changes,
lawsuits, public health crises), the scientific community’s reputation
could take a significant hit, similar to historical failures like the
Vioxx scandal (2004), where a drug was withdrawn after underreported
cardiovascular risks. However, if the findings are debated or disproven, the impact might be limited to academic circles, with less public “shaming.”
It’s
unlikely that the scientific community would readily admit that Kirsch,
an outsider, was right and they were wrong, for several reasons: Epidemiologists’ Expertise:
Researchers with decades of training in epidemiology, biostatistics,
and public health would be reluctant to concede that a simple method by
an electrical engineer outperforms their established protocols.
Admitting this would undermine their professional authority and the
validity of their life’s work. Institutional Resistance:
Agencies like the CDC, WHO, and FDA have staked their reputations on
vaccine safety. For example, the CDC’s ACIP recommended COVID vaccines
for all age groups by 2025, citing extensive safety data. Reversing this
stance would require extraordinary evidence and could lead to public
distrust, so they’re incentivized to defend their methods. Historical Resistance:
The scientific community often resists paradigm shifts, especially from
outsiders. Semmelweis was ostracized, and Marshall faced years of
skepticism. Kirsch, already labeled a “misinformation superspreader” in
his article, faces an uphill battle for credibility.
Kirsch’s Limitations: The scientific community could argue that Kirsch’s method, while simple, lacks rigor: Confounder Adjustment:
Kirsch minimally adjusts for confounders (only via baseline and HVE for
older cohorts). Standard methods adjust for age, sex, comorbidities,
socioeconomic status, etc., which researchers would argue are necessary
to isolate vaccine effects. HVE Oversimplification:
Kirsch’s HVE correction (slope adjustment on the mortality curve)
doesn’t account for broader health disparities (e.g., access to care,
lifestyle), which mainstream studies address through matching or
regression. Data Quality:
Kirsch notes data entry errors in the Czech dataset (e.g., vaccination
after death) but claims they don’t affect outcomes. Researchers might
challenge this, demanding sensitivity analyses.
Defense of Established Methods:
Researchers could argue that their methods (e.g., propensity score
matching, survival analysis) are more robust for causal inference. For
example, Nordström et al. (2022) used matching to control for HVE, which
Kirsch dismisses but which aligns with epidemiological standards. Peer Review:
Kirsch’s work, published on Substack without peer review, would be
scrutinized heavily. The scientific community might demand replication
in peer-reviewed journals before considering it valid, using lack of
peer review as a reason to dismiss his findings.
Pro-Vaccine Narrative:
The dominant narrative from 2020–2025, reinforced by studies like
Watson et al. (Lancet 2022), is that COVID vaccines saved millions of
lives. Admitting Kirsch is right would require dismantling this
narrative, which has underpinned global vaccination policies, public
trust, and billions in pharmaceutical investments. Legal and Economic Fallout:
If Kirsch’s findings are accepted, governments and pharmaceutical
companies (e.g., Pfizer, Moderna) could face lawsuits, recalls, or
policy reversals. The scientific community, often funded by or
collaborating with these entities, might resist to avoid such
consequences. Public Health Backlash:
Admitting vaccines caused harm could fuel vaccine hesitancy, impacting
not just COVID vaccines but others (e.g., MMR, polio). Public health
officials might prioritize maintaining trust in vaccination programs
over acknowledging Kirsch’s findings.
Self-Described “Misinformation Superspreader”:
Kirsch’s self-labeling and critical tone (e.g., “nobody does it the
correct way”) may alienate the scientific community. His outsider status
and history of controversial claims (e.g., in other contexts like
election integrity, as noted in public discourse) could lead researchers
to dismiss him as a fringe figure. Lack of Formal Credentials:
While Kirsch’s MIT background in electrical engineering is impressive,
he lacks formal training in epidemiology or medicine. The scientific
community often prioritizes domain expertise, and his outsider status
might make them less likely to take his work seriously, even if correct.
Replication and Validation:
If independent researchers replicate Kirsch’s method using other
datasets (e.g., if more countries release raw data) and confirm his
findings, some scientists might acknowledge his contribution while
critiquing its limitations. For example, they might adopt his raw ACM
focus but integrate it with confounder adjustments. Niche Acceptance:
A subset of researchers, particularly those critical of mainstream
vaccine narratives (e.g., authors like Ladapo or Skidmore, whom Kirsch
cites), might embrace his method, but this would likely remain a
minority view unless broader validation occurs. Historical Precedent:
Over time, if Kirsch’s method gains traction (e.g., through policy
changes or undeniable evidence of harm), the scientific community might
slowly shift, as seen with Marshall’s H. pylori discovery. But this
would take years and require overwhelming evidence.
Replication with Other Datasets:
If similar raw data from other countries (e.g., Denmark, Israel)
becomes available and yields the same result (24% mortality increase),
the scientific community would face pressure to engage with Kirsch’s
method. Peer-Reviewed Validation:
Publication in a reputable journal (e.g., BMJ, Nature) after rigorous
peer review would lend credibility, forcing researchers to take it
seriously. Public Health Evidence:
Real-world outcomes (e.g., excess mortality trends correlating with
vaccination rates, as seen in some 2024–2025 X posts discussing UK or
U.S. data) aligning with Kirsch’s findings could push the scientific
community to reconsider. Legal or Policy Action:
If governments or courts act on Kirsch’s findings (e.g., vaccine
withdrawal, as with the 1976 swine flu vaccine in the U.S.), the
scientific community might be forced to acknowledge his work, albeit
reluctantly.
X Posts and Web Sentiment:
As of May 18, 2025, Kirsch’s work on Substack has likely sparked
discussion on platforms like X, where vaccine skepticism has grown since
2023 (e.g., posts citing VAERS data, UK ONS mortality stats). However,
mainstream scientific discourse (e.g., CDC statements, WHO reports)
continues to affirm vaccine safety, suggesting resistance to Kirsch’s
claims. Scientific Community’s Stance:
Most researchers and institutions would likely dismiss Kirsch’s method
as unadjusted and unpublished, maintaining that their methods (e.g.,
Nordström et al., 2022) are more rigorous. A minority of
vaccine-critical researchers might engage with his work, but widespread
admission of error is unlikely without further evidence.
If Kirsch’s method is proven correct, it would indeed put the scientific community to shame by
exposing flaws in their established methods, suggesting they missed a
significant vaccine harm (24% mortality increase). This would be a major
embarrassment, as an MIT electrical engineer with no epidemiological
training would have outperformed experts in their own field, echoing
historical cases like Semmelweis or Marshall. However, the scientific
community is unlikely to admit Kirsch was right without overwhelming
evidence—such as replication with other datasets, peer-reviewed
validation, or undeniable public health outcomes—due to professional
pride, institutional inertia, methodological critiques, narrative
implications, and Kirsch’s outsider status. As of May 18, 2025,
resistance would likely dominate, with mainstream researchers defending
their methods while a niche group might engage with Kirsch’s approach. I
think it’s pretty likely my new method doesn’t have any holes. It’s so
incredibly simple. You simply count deaths in the vaccinated and
unvaccinated groups and compare them (using the cumulative deaths) and
correct for slope imbalances due to differential mortality in the two
cohorts. No need for death certificate analysis. No need for comorbidity
analysis either. It’s based on the law of large numbers and the central
limit theorem. It
appears I will never be acknowledged in my lifetime by the scientific
community for creating a method that reveals the truth. But that’s never a reason to keep this method a secret. It's a powerful tool for truth. But
the method, to be useful, depends on data transparency of public health
data. Public health officials, appear to uniformly believe that keeping
this information secret leads to better health outcomes. Do they have
any peer-reviewed papers that show that? Nope. Nothing. They use “privacy” as an excuse, but my Grok conversation showed that such an excuse is completely without merit. So why do they do it? Because it allows them to escape scrutiny.
For some reason, people don’t like to expose information showing that
they screwed up badly by ignoring their own data and that they helped
kill lot of people. On the other hand, the first rule of holes is that when you find yourself in one, stop digging. Share Invite your friends and earn rewardsIf you enjoy Steve Kirsch's newsletter, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe. Invite Friends |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment