Posted on 09/26/2022 8:13:23 AM PDT by bitt
A short collection of key pieces of evidence showing the COVID vaccines are not "safe and effective." Not even close. They are the most deadly vaccines we've ever produced.
Here’s a high level collection of some of the most compelling pieces of evidence I’ve seen to date. This is not an exhaustive list, but just the key pieces of data that are impossible to explain if the vaccines are safe and effective.
...more..
I’ve divided the collection into sections and I’ve tried to limit each section to the most compelling data points. So don’t be disappointed if your favorite item isn’t mentioned in this article; I wanted to keep it short enough to be read..
I’ll try to keep this updated over time. It can be found in the Reference section of my Substack.
The phase 3 clinical trial data
The Pfizer trial 6 month report showed absolutely no all-cause morbidity or mortality benefit. There were no all-cause benefits at all. It was all negative. Ask your doctor why you should take a new, unproven medical intervention that is not shown to have an overall benefit. Even if there was a benefit of fewer COVID infections (which is seriously suspect due to the gaming below), the fact that the total all-cause numbers for both mortality and morbidity were negative means the intervention should not be recommended by any doctor.
The Pfizer trial 6 month report showed that more people died (and were injured) who got the drug than who got the placebo. In other words, the cure was worse than the disease. The drug maker claimed that none of the people in the vaccine group were killed by the vaccine. They do not reveal the tests they did and explain how they were able to make that assessment. Why the secrecy here, especially in light of the study by Bhakdi and Burkhardt showing that trained medical examiners missed the causality link in 93% of the cases they looked at? The Pfizer vaccine had 4X as many cardiac arrests in the treatment group than the placebo (see page 12 of the Supplemental Appendix). This lines up very well with the numerous cardiac-related problems related to the vaccine as documented in the study by Retsef Levi and in the VAERS data which showed that the “cardiac arrest” reports were elevated by a factor of 93X higher than the annual baseline rate (VAERS reports from all vaccines combined in previous years). For some reason, the CDC wasn’t able to detect that signal (it was only 100 times higher than normal so they ignored it for some reason; they won’t let me ask them about it). In short, the claims from the manufacturer that none of the deaths were caused by the vaccine are highly suspect since all the evidence for those claims remains hidden from public view for some reason.
“most recently the data and study in Israel.”
Which, per K’s newsletter the vaccine showed no harm.
I wasn’t speaking to you, yet I took the time to give you the context... from which you took an out of context quote.
You great pedantic oaf. LOL.
Kirsch: Al Gore can help save the planet, but he can’t do it alone. He’s doing that by raising funds for climateprotect.org which will be running public awareness advertising. He’s also withholding his endorsement for President until we have a candidate who is willing to take the actions required to save the planet. Global warming is virtually impossible to solve without support from the next President, so Gore is doing exactly the right thing by withholding an endorsement and I applaud him for doing that.
Hello retard, the Israeli study explicitly changes causal confidence in harmful vaccine effects from ‘possible’ to ‘definitive’. And goes into great detail to do so.
Are you for real retarded, or only pretending?
y Steve Kirsch
Modern humans have roamed the earth for the past 120,000 years. If we continue to act as we have in the past and as we are acting now, the scientific consensus is that there is now more than a 5% chance that human beings could be virtually extinct in as little as 90 years from now.
The reason you haven’t heard about it though is because the press hasn’t really connected the dots between 3 different highly respected scientific sources: IPCC consensus report, a paper that appeared in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (that was cited by Time Magazine), and a book, “Six Degrees” by Mark Lynas, that was brought to my attention by Bob Corell, a leading climate scientist who appeared on 60 Minutes in 2006.
If you put the 3 sources together, you’ll reach the same conclusion I did.
Here are the details...
Ostensibly, we will die due to the effects of global warming.
Kirsch: The Clinton Global Initiative may one day save us.
Kirsch: Studies have shown that our planet can only sustainably support about 4 billion people.
Kirsch: Studies have shown that our planet can only sustainably support about 4 billion people.
Obviously incorrect
-———Kirsch—————
have a simple suggestion: Why not tell Americans a few simple, undisputable but significant facts about global warming that they do not already know and then let them make their own value judgments?
Here are my suggestions for three simple, but important facts that I think that everyone should know, but nobody does know:
Our best scientists tell us that at the rate things are going today, there is more than a 5% chance that temperatures could rise by more than 6ºC in less than 100 years from now
It is unlikely that humanity will be able to survive a 6ºC temperature increase in other than small numbers.
We are out of time. Our leading scientists tell us that the best way to prevent a global warming disaster is to take very aggressive actions now to reduce our emissions and encourage other countries to do the same. We should be cutting greenhouse gas emissions like our lives depend on it; because they do!
In oth
-———Kirsch—————
I have a simple suggestion: Why not tell Americans a few simple, undisputable but significant facts about global warming that they do not already know and then let them make their own value judgments?
Here are my suggestions for three simple, but important facts that I think that everyone should know, but nobody does know:
Our best scientists tell us that at the rate things are going today, there is more than a 5% chance that temperatures could rise by more than 6ºC in less than 100 years from now
It is unlikely that humanity will be able to survive a 6ºC temperature increase in other than small numbers.
We are out of time. Our leading scientists tell us that the best way to prevent a global warming disaster is to take very aggressive actions now to reduce our emissions and encourage other countries to do the same. We should be cutting greenhouse gas emissions like our lives depend on it; because they do!
In oth
How did the rich guy get rich? Maybe he get paid for his work or something. LOL. Jesus Christ
I am just citing his newsletter.
Kirsch
One thing that most experts I’ve talked with agree upon: if we are going to solve this problem, we must elect a President in 2008 who is serious about aggressively tackling this problem. A good indicator of whether we should be optimistic or not about our future is to look at where global warming is on the priority list of those running for President. Only one candidate has made his global warming priority crystal clear: John Edwards. Edwards has said global warming is his #1 issue and it’s also listed as the #1 issue on his home page.
Kirsch (government credits for EV’s)
We should incentivize (not require) auto makers to transition their entire fleet to plug-in hybrids with at least a 40 mile all electric range (AER) by providing big tax credits for consumers who purchase these vehicles. If the automakers say this is impossible, then they have no reason to oppose such a bill. And once a car maker proves it is possible, then you can start requiring it since all the objections (such as it cannot be done, it will bankrupt us, etc.) should be overcome. Note that Toyota has already announced that it will have a 100% hybrid fleet by 2012. There should be even bigger credits if the car can run on compressed hydrogen when the battery range is exhausted (either as a fuel cell or in an internal combustion engine) because that is the only fuel that is zero GHG if produced through electrolysis. Cellulosic ethanol is another possibility, but that solution has air quality problem.
We should ask every American to make a choice in buying plug-in hybrids with a 40 mile AER or even better, a full power battery electric vehicle such as the Tesla.
We are doomed. Already 5 years passed his point of no return.
-——————Kirsch-——————
Not long ago, I received an email from David Hawkins of NRDC which included the sentence:
“Without action right away, options to cut emissions by 50%, 75%, 80% by 2050 all disappear rapidly.”
I was stunned at what he said. Basically, we have only 10 years to make some very serious headway or we are in deep deep trouble.
Jeff Bezos was wrong about his wife, so he must be wrong about e-commerce.
Why does your brain work like this?
-———Kirsch-—————
I am not a climate scientist. Over the past four moths, I’ve spent a lot of time researching climate change and talking with the experts. I’d like to share with you the most important things that I learned:
Global warming is the biggest threat that our civilization has ever faced.
-—————————or?————
I am not a medical doctor. Over the past four moths, I’ve spent a lot of time researching the vaccines and talking with the experts. I’d like to share with you the most important things that I learned:
The jab is the biggest threat that our civilization has ever faced.
—————Kirsch————
The lower our population the easier it will be to reverse these trends including global warming. Without lowering our population, it will be impossible. You never hear anyone talk about it, but eliminating unwanted pregnancies world wide is one of the most cost effective ways we can reduce global warming.
Kirsch
Global warming is more important than jobs or the economy or anything else
You hear President Bush talk about how we can’t afford to fight global warming or that it “would hurt the economy.” We must decide whether saving the planet is more important than potentially hurting our economy (many say it would help our economy, especially our balance of trade). This is a tough question we should all ponder. The planet? Or our economy? Which is more important. Hmmm....
Your idiotic equivocations, while psychologically fascinating, are pointless.
Comment on the cited study. Stay on topic. It will be good for your scattered mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.