The data is clear and consistent. I challenge any qualified scientist to challenge this data in an open public debate

By Steve Kirsch

Executive summary

The irresponsible attacks by an LA Times journalist Michael Hiltzik (search Column: “Why anti-vaxxers are pretending a flawed study on vaccine deaths has been vindicated”) on MSU Professor Mark Skidmore’s paper motivated me to run my own survey of my readers to see what the actual harm numbers really are.

Over 10,000 readers responded. The results were not anonymous. To respond and be counted, you had to include your contact information.

This is a huge benefit compared to a “scientific survey.” In a “scientific survey,” you normally aren’t allowed to collect the identity of the responder, so it must be anonymous. So in a “scientific survey,” the peer-reviewers cannot verify whether the research was telling the truth or not. In my survey, they can. Which one is more trustable? After all, a key attribute of “scientific evidence” is that it can be independently verified. Mine can. Relatively few published studies (on most topics) cannot be because they never disclose the record level data.

The survey clearly showed that the COVID vaccines have killed 3.5 times as many people as COVID. This is a disaster.

I’ve had expert statisticians and epidemiologists review the survey, the methodology, and the results. None could find any errors.

I’m willing to put a million dollars on the table that this is right and that the vaccines have killed more people than COVID. Any takers? If not, why not?

When I called Professor Norman Fenton and informed him of the 3.5X figure he calmly replied “I’m not surprised.”

The results of this survey are entirely consistent with the surveys by others as well as individual anecdotes that would have been very unlikely for me to have located if the vaccine didn’t kill at least 3.5X more people than the virus.

Therefore accusations of “the survey was biased” are simply “hand-waving” arguments with absolutely no evidentiary basis of support. Could there be bias? Of course. Is the bias significant is the question! Since these people are anti-vaxxers, they are simply less likely to vaccinate and so the number of vaccine injuries will be LOWER than an unbiased group who vaccinates. So yes, there may be bias, but if anything the bias suggests that the actual ratio is higher than 3.5. I’m happy to have that discussion. Bring it on.

The best way to challenge these results is to show data that is 100% independently verifiable (which government statistics are not). So they will have to show us their survey and their verifiable anecdotes supporting their hypothesis. No one has any interest in doing that for some reason. These people are all perfectly content with having the number be “unknown.” I have a big problem with that.

Finally, if any epidemiologist(s) with a h-index of 20 or more wants to publicly challenge the 3.5X result in an open public discussion, it’s easy to contact me. The h-index is simply a way to ensure we have a meaningful level of discourse. The people on my side of the debate table will have a combined h-index of over 100.

Contact Steve at: kirschsubstack.com/p/how-to-contact-me

Read the entire article at: kirschsubstack.com/p/vaccine-killed-35x-more-americans

Originally published at: kirschsubstack.com