Everyone I know has reported more deaths after vaccination than the number of deaths right before they were going to be vaccinated. That’s impossible if the vaccines are safe, wrote Steve Kirsch.
“If the vaccines are perfectly safe:
- The death rates immediately prior to any dose should be exactly the same as the death rate immediately after the dose.
- The death rate should not be dose-dependent. It should be 1:1 on every single dose (for the death rate before: after).
“Guess what? Both of these “rules” are violated. Not by a little. By a lot. Like a factor of 5X to 8X increase in ACM [all-cause mortality] in the month after the shot compared to the month before the shot according to 400 independent investigators.”
On 13 May 2022, Kirsch conducted a simple online survey. “Unfortunately, death certificates don’t list when you got vaccinated or when you were planning on getting vaccinated … If you know someone who died and you know when they died relative to their Covid vaccination schedule, please fill out this survey,” Kirsch requested.
Eleven hours later Kirsch had sufficient data to analyse and found he had highly statistically significant results. The analysis provides convincing evidence that the Covid vaccines have killed over 500,000 Americans.
“It [ ] DESTROYS the CDC argument that there is no link between vaccines and death. It would be hard for them to explain this away: the ACM effect is huge, it is statistically significant, and it is dose-dependent.
“The CDC had 18 months to do this sort of survey and still hasn’t done it. They probably never will. It’s a valid study. It just needs to be re-done just a bit more carefully.”
By Steve Kirsch
A simple survey of my readers provided some extremely compelling evidence that:
- the US government has killed over 500,000 previously healthy Americans; and,
- that the vaccine actually caused the deaths.
It took me around 30 minutes to create the survey and 11 hours to wait for highly statistically significant results.
I was able to accomplish something in less than 12 hours that the CDC has been unable to accomplish in 18 months: prove causality. We see both dose-dependency and enormous changes in ACM deaths pre- vs. post-vaccine. We satisfy all five Bradford-Hill criteria applicable to vaccines.
We used 400 independent observers. I should note that all follow my Substack so they are correlated: all have excellent judgment, high intelligence, and immunity from mass formation effects. So, they have the ability to see what is truly going on.
The survey compared the all-cause mortality (ACM) death rates just PRIOR to a vaccine dose to the ACM death rates immediately AFTER the dose. I predicted they would be dramatically higher after the dose and the effect would be dose-dependent. It appears I was right. In fact, the survey projects far more deaths than I thought possible.
The number of deaths computed from the reports could be as high as 2M Americans, but the 500,000 number seems more credible, so I’m discounting the result by 4X to account for biases and confounders.
I don’t think there is any way anyone is going to be able to “explain away” these results once we redo the survey with a better set of controls (the next step).
And these results are ONLY counting the all-cause mortality increase for just the one month after each shot. We know you can die a year later from these vaccines.
We found Dose #4 caused only a 1.27X increase compared with 5.5X to 8.3X for doses 1 and 2 respectively and 2.3X for Dose #3. If this were a highly biased population, Dose 4 would have caused a larger discrepancy, but it’s approaching 1:1 as we’d expect.
The decreasing ACM increase with later shots makes sense… The vaccine eliminates anyone whose immune system is susceptible to auto-immune attacks on the spike protein. If it hasn’t killed you after 3 shots, it’s less likely to kill you on shot #4. You’re immune due to both survivor bias and the fact that your immune system has recognised the “vaccine” as an invader and clears it from the system quicker than on shots 1 and 2. This of course says nothing about its impact on effectiveness against the “virus” which is likely pretty minimal at this point which is a story for another day.
The higher ACM differential on dose 2 was interesting. This may be somewhat of a poison accumulation effect. You’re basically doubling the dose over a 4-week period rather than giving your body time to recover.
Note that this factor is simply the difference between the ACM before the shot vs. after the shot. We have no idea whether the ACM goes back to baseline between shots or not. It likely does drop. We don’t know how fast. Hence, the progressively decreasing impact on ACM increases due to the jab. It could very well be that your ACM is 1.1X your baseline months or years after the shots.
When you do the maths, based on these numbers, well over 500,000 people have been killed by the vaccines so far.
If the survey were more precise, I’d expect lower ACM increases, but still a final death toll north of 500,000.
The 500K excess death estimate is supported by the actual US mortality numbers as being plausible (which have a total excess death count of roughly 1M deaths since Jan 2021).
My colleagues are looking at this data and mulling over it.
We have identified a very large signal that I don’t think will go away when we redo the survey. We will need to think carefully about the next iteration of the survey and have the protocol peer-reviewed to eliminate biases before we launch it. Now we know this will be time well spent.
So don’t break out the champagne just yet. But I think you’ll want to get it ready. We are getting very close.
by Rhoda Wilson
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.