Page 8, Kirsch echoes my thought that some/many doctors are underreporting to keep the numbers down.
He also suggests that the reporting by time tends to confirm the vaccines’ involvement in adverse events, which my informal study had also found.
Kirsch estimates the number of vaccine deaths by applying a factor of 41 to the number of deaths through 8/27/21 = 7,149. This factor of 41 is equivalent to saying 2.4% of the deaths are being reported.
Eyeballing his page 9 chart of days/death, more than half of the deaths occurred in the first 10 days. Is it plausible that these were reported in 2.4% of the cases? Grant the reporting ratio would decrease over time.
**
Page 13, example 10, minor carp, the folks receiving the second dose would be a little bit older than for the first dose. Medium carp, if there is a cumulative effect to the vaccines, then we’d see an increase in events for the second dose. (It’s possible the cumulative effect takes a while to show up.)
**
Page 15, example 12:
“But we speculate that maximum accumulation of spike protein is achieved around 24 hours or so after injection and then it plateaus after that point as the mRNA disintegrates. Therefore, we would expect to see a death peak more than 24 hours after injection, i.e., on Day 1 and not on Day 0. This is exactly what happens in practice”
This looks like a tautology. Is there a reason Kirsch speculates that the maximum accumulation occurs at 24 hours?