Source:
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-my-friend-dr-joseph
The LA Times said his study showing the vaccines were harmful was unscientific and flawed and claimed the rates of myocarditis caused by COVID are higher than those from the vaccine. Here's the truth.
I wrote an earlier article on Joe pointing out he’s one of just two honest public health officials in the US that I’m aware of who realizes the vaccines are not safe.
Recently, I wrote this article on the study done in Florida which recommended against the vaccine for males 18 to 39. The reason: a huge safety signal was triggered that is impossible to explain if the vaccines are safe and effective.
The LA Times called his study a threat to public health, flawed, and unscientific.
I’m going to examine each of these claims and show why they are misleading.
Here are the key points:
“Flawed”: This is silly. Every scientific study ever done has flaws: biases, confounders, protocol violations, limited number of participants, etc. The study was limited to a certain population, e.g., to rule out COVID as the cause of the effect observed. So this claim means nothing. That is why there is a limitations section to the study. Also, if it was flawed, then why are they touting the parts of the study that agree with their beliefs??? You can’t cherry pick the parts you believe are true on the basis of your belief system. In my case, I’ll point out the big flaw of the study, but the fact that there was a huge statistically significant safety signal despite this flaw is impossible to explain if the vaccine is safe. That’s what the focus should be on. More on that below. So despite the limitation, there was a serious signal there and that’s legit to focus on and it has nothing to do with cherry picking those conclusions I may personally agree with.
“Unscientific”: This is silly again. Science is all about fitting observations to the best hypothesis. Always has been, always will be. They observed that vaccinated males had a statistically significant elevation in cardiac death 28 days post vax. Had they concluded the opposite, that the vaccine was perfectly safe, then Ladapo could be criticized as being unscientific. But he reported the signal. On the other hand, newspapers promoting the COVID vaccines as safe as the LA Times is doing should be labeled as unscientific. See Evidence of Harm. Also, the same logic applies again for “unscientific”: either the study is valid or it should be ignored. You can’t cherry pick the parts you believe are true like the LA Times in their claim that the all-cause mortality was lower. You can only cherry pick parts where the data is significant and it is not caused by a limitation of the study.
“Even if there were higher cardiac deaths, the all-cause deaths were lower for vaccinated people in that age group.” This is the whopper. The big obvious lie. The study concluded nothing for 18-39 all-cause mortality because the confidence intervals were too wide to make a determination of harm or benefit. But what the study did show clearly was a strong, statistically significant evidence of an increase in cardiac deaths for 18-39 year-olds as can be seen from Table 2 on page 6:
What the LA Times engaged in is deception. All-cause deaths weren’t statistically significant, but the cardiac deaths were up by almost a factor of 2 in men who got vaccinated. That’s nearly a 100% increase in death.
And this should be no surprise since it is consistent with the cardiac rates post vaccine in Israel. The data was so bad that they were not given access to data beyond the initial period.
As for rates of myocarditis caused by COVID vs. vaccines, consider the following anecdote from the first doctor I asked about this. He’s been practicing for 30 years and never saw a case of myocarditis or pericarditis. Since the vaccines rolled out, he’s seen 4 cases. He’s hardly alone. I don’t know of any cardiologist who saw rates of myocarditis drop after the vaccines rolled out, everyone I know has seen the opposite.
I also know a pediatrician at Stanford who has never seen so many cases of cardiac issues in her career. She is the sole breadwinner in her family so she has to remain silent while other kids die. She isn’t allowed to warn her patients because if she does, they’ll fire her and take away her medical license (AB 2098). If these injuries were from COVID, they’d be encouraging her to speak out. But when it’s from the vaccine, they must all say nothing. The LA Times should be writing about this.
If the vaccines are so effective, where are all the cardiologists who are seeing the dramatic drop in myocarditis cases?
They don’t exist AFAIK. If they do, where are they? That’s a problem for the mainstream media. A big problem. But none of them ask the critical questions because they never consider that they could be wrong.
The ad hominem attacks
The LA Times wrote:
Ladapo has been labeled a “quack” and a “COVID crank.” If there has been any doubt that these labels are justified, they should be dispelled by his latest action.
There is just one tiny problem with that that they missed in the article… p: Ladapo wasn’t involved in the execution of the study; it was all done by the professional staff who are pro-vax (at least they were before they did the study). That’s really significant by the LA Times missed that. I haven’t a clue how that might have happened.
The one big flaw in the study: overall the vaccine kills more people outside the 28 day window than inside it
The study showed a mortality benefit for the vaccine, but if you are a regular reader of my Substack, you know that that’s impossible; these vaccines are all downside. Nobody should take these vaccines.
So how did this study show a benefit for vaccination for certain age groups? Do you understand why that happened? The LA Times didn’t. Not at all. None of their trusted sources had a clue. They never pointed it out.
The explanation is in this article that I wrote 6 weeks ago: Vaccines are taking an average of 5 months to kill people.
There are two time constants for this vaccine: fast (within weeks) and slow (peaking at around 5 months). Some events happen quickly, others delayed, and some events (cardiac) happen both quickly and delayed.
If the vaccine deaths all happened in a 30 day window, this study would be very accurate. But they don’t.
But the death curve for the entire population in aggregate peaks 5 months out as noted in the article.
This makes a case controlled study where everyone is vaccinated problematic.
Say we have a deadly vaccine which kills 50% of people at exactly 20 weeks out. Those who aren’t killed are fine.
Based on the study design looking at 28 days vs. the range after the 28 days, our vaccine would be a miracle life-saving drug when in reality it should be immediately stopped.
The LA Times and their sources didn’t point this out to anyone. How could they miss this? I guess these people don’t read my Substack.
Is this study worthless for this reason? No, not at all because it found a strong spike for myocarditis despite this complication. That’s extraordinary and cannot be explained since a “perfectly safe” vaccine should have a relative incidence (RI) value of 1 (rate of death is random) and not close to 2.
But if you want to see how the deaths compare overall for vaxxed vs. unvaxxed, here’s a graph that just came out moments ago:
And the data behind that shows exactly what I am talking about:
See how the COVID deaths are actually HIGHER in the first 28 days than lower (like we would have thought from the study). Also see how the non-COVID all-cause mortality keeps going up? So it makes it look like the vaccines are saving lives when in reality they are just ramping up the kill rate over time.
It’s great to have both perspectives (the Florida study and these UK numbers) to give us great insight as to what is really going on.
This Fox News segment is a MUST WATCH (2 minutes)
Watch particularly at 1:30 into the video where Tucker asks:
“There are 50 states; why is your state the only one telling us this?”
Joe has a brilliant answer:
“I think frankly it’s because we are the only ones who asked the question.”
Yup. Exactly right. No other state wants to expose the truth.
Tweet thread
Twitter reaction
Twitter censored Joe’s tweet about the study and then changed their minds.
Twitter clearly thinks (now) that it is not misinformation and «sarcasm on> there is no authority who is more highly respected in the medical community than the Twitter censorship network. <sarcasm off>
Summary
All studies have limitations. Science is all about open discussion of the limitations of the study and what you can learn from it so you can try to avoid mistakes the next time. Science is never about trying to deplatform and discredit people who are making an honest attempt to find the truth.
Comparing the vaccine against itself is a bit problematic because all the death events are not clustered within 28 days of vaccination like they might be with other vaccines.
So in this case, the vaccines should like they save lives even though they are doing the exact opposite.
In light of this observation, the fact that there is close to a 2X elevation in the death rate in the first 28 days is very hard to explain.
Instead of criticizing Joe’s study, the mainstream narrative promoters should explain to the public exactly how a vaccine which is so safe can double the cardiac death rate for young people.
I’m all ears!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.