Steve Kirsch: “When you Try to Show People the Data, They Run Away

Steve Kirsch discusses the latest safety data regarding the COVID vaccine with Russell Brand at Rumble: Kirsch, inventor of the optical mouse, voluntarily received two COVID vaccinations at during the pandemic. He had minor reactions, but he started hearing from people who claimed that their relatives were dying shortly after getting vaccinated. After finding more than 700 safety signals in the VAERS data obtained as the result of the FOIA request, he approached the CDC, seeking comment or explanation. He received neither. Instead, he encountered willing and/or intentional ignorance regarding the data. The CDC started with the premise that everyone must get vaccinated. Anything conflicting with that must be suppressed. At min 24 of this interview, Kirsch reports recent findings (by Barry Young, a New Zealand whistle-blower who worked for a NZ public health agency, who is currently being prosecuted by NZ) that 1 out of 1,000 people receiving the COVID vaccine was killed by the vaccine. If true, this would project to 650,000 Americans killed by the vaccine. Excerpts from the Interview

Steve Kirsch: Let me start with the punch line, which is that when you analyze the data and you look at overall shots over all ages, what you see is about a increase of one death per 1000 doses on average, is that people that were killed by the vaccine that shouldn't have died. And so that corresponds to 13 million people killed worldwide, it corresponds to about 675,000 people in the United States being killed, and about 150,000 people in the UK being killed.

And so that's what the Barry's data reveals. Now, what's important about Barry's data is that this is the first time in history that we have ever seen record level data for a vaccine. It's always kept hidden from public view. So these are public health records that are always kept hidden from public view. You there's no country in the world that publishes this data that was leaked out. There is no state in the United States that publishes this data. Everyone keeps it hidden from public view. This is public health data, it belongs to the public. And this is the first time in history, this has never happened before. This is a big moment. This is the first time we get to peek behind the curtain and find out if they're what the man looks like behind the curtain. So what Barry did is completely game changing. And for me, it's it's like it this is the the Holy Grail.

This is what I've been searching for. This is what we've been denied all this time is access to the data that would show the truth. And nobody, nobody, nobody who is supporting the pro-vaccine narrative has ever called for any data transparency in the public health data. Nobody. There is not a single person calling for for data transparency. But but you know, there's not a paper that's published in the peer reviewed literature--I've checked that--saying that, "Hey, if you withhold the data from the public, it leads to better health outcomes." So if you want their health outcomes, you need to publish the data. ... He basically he exposed the data... He proved that you could publish the data and nobody's privacy would be violated that but there's still statistical fidelity in the data. So we can obfuscate the data but still have the statistical fidelity so we can do it the analysis without violating anyone's privacy.

This was thought to be impossible. And Barry has proved that it is possible to do and not even the New Zealand Ministry of Health or health New Zealand was able to figure out whose records were published. They know it's their records, but we obfuscated it. So there's no privacy violation, and this frustrates the hell out of them.

Russell Brand: How did Barry get that information, he worked for a New Zealand Health for like a government agency?

Steve Kirsch: He's an Oracle 11 DBA. He's a database administrator. He's a specialist on Oracle. He was tasked with creating the database for this pay per dose system in New Zealand. And there are two there are two systems. And one of them is pay per dose. And it's just the way that that that they do billing. And so he has 4 million, he has over 4 million records of the 12 million records that exist in New Zealand. So it's a sample of all the vaccination records, and it would be great to get everything, but it's only people who've been vaccinated."

In the meantime, the Texas Attorney General has filed a lawsuit against Pfizer for widespread misrepresentations:

The pharmaceutical company's widespread representation that its vaccine possessed 95% efficacy against infection was highly misleading. That metric represented a calculation of the so-called “relative risk reduction” for vaccinated individuals in Pfizer’s initial, two-month clinical trial results. FDA publications indicate “relative risk reduction” is a misleading statistic that “unduly influence[s]” consumer choice. Pfizer was also put on notice at that time that vaccine protection could not accurately be predicted beyond two months. Nevertheless, Pfizer fostered a misleading impression that vaccine protection was durable and withheld from the public information that undermined its claims about the duration of protection. And, despite the fact that its clinical trial failed to measure whether the vaccine protects against transmission, Pfizer embarked on a campaign to intimidate the public into getting the vaccine as a necessary measure to protect their loved ones.

In fact, Pfizer’s product failed to live up to the company’s representations. COVID-19 cases increased after widespread vaccine administration, and some areas saw a greater percentage of deaths from COVID-19 among the vaccinated population than the unvaccinated. When the failure of its product became apparent, Pfizer then pivoted to silencing truth-tellers. The lawsuit notes: “How did Pfizer respond when it became apparent that its vaccine was failing and the viability of its cash cow was threatened? By intimidating those spreading the truth, and by conspiring to censor its critics. Pfizer labeled as ‘criminals’ those who spread facts about the vaccine. It accused them of spreading ‘misinformation.’ And it coerced social media platforms to silence prominent truth-tellers.”

 

Continue ReadingSteve Kirsch: “When you Try to Show People the Data, They Run Away

Free-Flowing Money to Corrupt the Doctor-Patient Relationship by Incentivizing Vaccinations

How to corrupt the doctor-patient relationship: Quietly pay doctors to recommend vaccinations. What better way to convince doctors to downplay vaccination side-effects, most recently with the COVID vaccinations. I would prefer that my doctor not be paid anything by anyone, so that I am getting the doctor's free and unbiased judgment regarding treatment the doctor recommends. Excerpt:

Fake?

The AP attacked the claim that doctors receive $400 bonuses reaching some $40,000 per year, for getting those 39 vaccines into a baby on time. Yet, while determining the claim to be “false,” they clarify that their objection is just that it's not one price scheme for the entire nation.

CLAIM: Blue Cross Blue Shield pays doctors a $40,000 bonus for administering childhood immunizations to at least 100 patients under 2 years old and an $80,000 bonus for vaccinating 200 children.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association is a national federation of more than three dozen locally operated companies, and doesn’t offer such an incentive across the board . . . [Emphases added].

The AP went on to say that the $400 bonus and 63% benchmark are in fact the exact figures for the incentives offered in Michigan.

The document that blog post referred to was a 2016 edition of a Performance Recognition Program specifically for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Blue Care Network of Michigan. In a table titled “Quality Incentive Measures,” the program lays out that doctors who meet 63% of their plan goal for childhood immunizations receive a $400 payout. [Emphasis added].

The only real correction offered by the AP was that the doctors were not as successful as assumed in getting all those shots in the babies' arms. The payouts in 2016, in Michigan, topped out at $9,600. At $400 each, that translates to just 24 fully vaccinated babies.

One more excerpt, this time focusing Robert Malone's article on incentives paid to to doctors to incentivize the COVID jabs:

Dr. Robert Malone, an inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, revealed a similar, but even more rewarding, incentive program that was quietly provided to physicians to push mRNA injections. The program provides physicians with some $380,000 annually based on an average of 1,800 unique patient visits per year per medical practice...

The only way insurance companies could profit from more vaccinations would be if the government reimbursed them more than the combined costs to the insurance companies of purchasing the vaccinations and paying the bonuses. Dr. Malone confirms that this is exactly the case with COVID vaccines, as the money, which originates with the federal government, covers the costs of the vaccinations, the physicians' bonuses and the profit of the insurance companies. It is, therefore, tax dollars that are being passed from the government to the insurance companies to the doctors:

Continue ReadingFree-Flowing Money to Corrupt the Doctor-Patient Relationship by Incentivizing Vaccinations

CDC and Corporate News Media Profoundly Disinterested in Reedley, California Nightmare-Level Illegal Biolab

Almost no news media coverage of this surreal situation: CDC disinterest in an illegal Chinese-funded lab with pouches of ebola, transgenic mice with COVID-19 and other extreme hazards. No coverage by NYT, CNN, MSNBC or NPR. Only one day of token bury-the-lede coverage by WaPo. See the 8-minute video at Twitter explaining how the city of Reedley, California rang the alarm, crying out for help to the CDC, which reluctantly, ultimately, did a shitty job of "investigating" this lab, despite ubiquitous evidence of dangerous wrongdoing.

Continue ReadingCDC and Corporate News Media Profoundly Disinterested in Reedley, California Nightmare-Level Illegal Biolab

Anthony Fauci’s Support and Denial of Gain of Function Research

How is it that the same man who actively funded gain of function research actively denied funding it?  The answer, according to reporter David Zweig, is the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Here's an excerpt from Zweig's story at The Free Press:

During his decades as head of NIAID, Fauci oversaw the distribution of billions of dollars each year in research grants and contracts, some of which were awarded explicitly for what is commonly referred to as “gain-of-function research of concern.” This research involves manipulating viruses to become more transmissible and/or deadly in humans, with the hope that doing so might help advance development of vaccines and therapeutics against threats that don’t exist but theoretically might in the future.

As I previously reported in The Free Press, it is an intensely controversialpractice, with many scientists vehemently opposed to it. Kevin M. Esvelt, an evolutionary and ecological engineer at MIT, wrote in a 2021 opinion piece: “I implore every scientist, funder, and nation working in this field: Please stop.” Purposefully creating a pathogen that could wipe out millions of people—regardless of its hoped-for benefit—is “insanity,” global security and biodefense expert Dr. Laura Kahn told me.

Fauci has long been a vocal advocate for this type of research. And, despite pleas for it to stop, for at least a decade this dangerous research has been funded by the National Institutes of Health and NIAID. This connection was affirmed by Fauci, and is documented in published papers: NIH and NIAID are listed as financiers of the project in the acknowledgements of the most infamous gain-of-function study in history.

And I have documented that at least several NIH/NIAID-funded studies were involved in potentially creating more deadly coronaviruses.

There is no ambiguity: the NIH and NIAID have funded and supported this work. Yet Fauci, and his then-boss Collins, during the Covid years, repeatedly obscured and even outright denied their involvement.

Continue ReadingAnthony Fauci’s Support and Denial of Gain of Function Research