50% of reported deaths after COVID-19 “vaccination” occur within 24 hours; 80% occur within the first week. According to one report, 86% of deaths have no other explanation aside from a vaccine adverse event. A Scandinavian study concluded about 40% of post-jab deaths among seniors in assisted living homes are directly due to the injection.
In younger people and children, the risk associated with the COVID shot, compared to the risk of COVID-19, is bound to be even more pronounced.
Covid Vaccines are Epic Failure: October 26, 2021, Global Research published an interview with Dr. Peter McCullough, in which he reviews and explains the findings of a September 2021 study published in the journal Toxicology Reports, which states:1
“A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic.
The risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially.”
McCullough has impeccable academic credentials. He’s an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist and a full professor of medicine at Texas A&M College of Medicine in Dallas. He also has a master’s degree in public health and is known for being one of the top five most-published medical researchers in the United States, in addition to being the editor of two medical journals.
Authors Defend Their Paper
Covid Vaccines are Epic Failure: Not surprisingly, the Toxicology Reports paper has received scathing critique from certain quarters. Still, corresponding author Ronald Kostoff told Retraction Watch that the criticism has actually been “an extremely small fraction” of the overall response, which by and large has been overwhelmingly positive and supportive. Kostoff went on to say:2
“Given the blatant censorship of the mainstream media and social media, only one side of the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ narrative is reaching the public. Any questioning of the narrative is met with the harshest response …
I went into this with my eyes wide open, determined to identify the truth, irrespective of where it fell. I could not stand idly by while the least vulnerable to serious COVID-19 consequences were injected with substances of unknown mid and long-term safety.
We published a best-case scenario. The real-world situation is far worse than our best-case scenario, and could be the subject of a future paper.
What these results show is that we 1) instituted mass inoculations of an inadequately-tested toxic substance with 2) non-negligible attendant crippling and lethal results to 3) potentially prevent a relatively small number of true COVID-19 deaths. In other words, we used a howitzer where an accurate rifle would have sufficed!”
COVID Jab Campaign Has Had No Discernible Impact
Certainly, data very clearly show the mass “vaccination” campaign has not had a discernible impact on global death rates. On the contrary, in some cases the death toll shot up after the COVID shots became widely available. You can browse through covid19.healthdata.org3 to see this for yourself. Several examples are also included at the very beginning of the video.
This trend has also been confirmed in a September 2021 study4 published in the European Journal of Epidemiology. It found COVID-19 case rates are completely unrelated to vaccination rates.
RELATED ARTICLES:
- Double Jabbed die rate is Six Times higher than Unvaccinated, new data finds
- Licensed Pfizer Jab Comirnaty not available: No Liability for current Emergency Use Products
- Corporate Power: Who Owns the World?
- ‘Cancel culture’? In Russia it created a communist holocaust – WND
- State Power and Totalitarianism: Why Self-Righteousness is a Danger
Covid Vaccines are Epic Failure: Using data available as of September 3, 2021, from Our World in Data for cross-country analysis, and the White House COVID-19 Team data for U.S. counties, the researchers investigated the relationship between new COVID-19 cases and the percentage of the population that had been fully vaccinated.
Sixty-eight countries were included. Inclusion criteria included second dose vaccine data, COVID-19 case data and population data as of September 3, 2021. They then computed the COVID-19 cases per 1 million people for each country, and calculated the percentage of population that was fully vaccinated.
According to the authors, there was “no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last seven days.” If anything, higher vaccination rates were associated with a slight increase in cases. According to the authors:5
“[T]he trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.”
The Kostoff Analysis
Covid Vaccines are Epic Failure: Getting back to the Toxicology Reports paper,6 which is being referring to as “the Kostoff analysis,” McCullough says the analysis is definitely making news in clinical medicine. The paper focuses on two factors: assumptions and determinism.
Determinism describes how likely something is. For example, if a person takes a COVID shot, it’s 100% certain they got the injection. It’s not 50% or 75%. It’s an absolute certainty. As a result, that person has a 100% chance of being exposed to whatever risk is associated with that shot.
On the other hand, if a person says no to the injection, it’s not 100% chance they’ll get COVID-19, let alone die from it. You have a less than 1% chance of being exposed to SARS-CoV-2 and getting sick. So, it’s 100% deterministic that taking the shot exposes you to the risks of the shot, and less than 1% deterministic that you’ll get COVID if you don’t take the shot.
The other part of the equation is the assumptions, which are based on calculations using available data, such as pre-COVID death statistics and death reports filed with the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reports System (VAERS).
Mortality Data
As noted by McCullough, two reports have detailed COVID jab death data, showing 50% of deaths occur within 24 hours and 80% occur within the first week. In one of these reports, 86% of deaths were found to have no other explanation aside from a vaccine adverse event. McCullough also cites a Scandinavian study that concluded about 40% of post-jab deaths among seniors in assisted living homes are directly due to the injection. He also cites other eye-opening figures:
- The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention reports having more than 30,000 spontaneous reports of either hospitalizations and/or deaths among the fully vaccinated
- Data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services show 300,000 vaccinated CMS recipients have been hospitalized with breakthrough infections
- 60% of seniors over age 65 hospitalized for COVID-19 have been vaccinated
COVID Shots Are ‘Failing Wholesale’
Covid Vaccines are Epic Failure: “When we put all these data together, we have clear-cut science that the vaccines are failing wholesale,” McCullough says. The shots are particularly useless in seniors.
Again, based on a best-case conservative scenario, seniors are five times more likely to die from the shot than they are from the natural infection. This scenario includes the assumption that the PCR test is accurate and reported COVID deaths were in fact due to COVID-19, which we know is not the case, and the assumption that the shots actually prevent death, which we have no proof of.
All things considered, you are FAR better off taking your chances with the natural infection, as McCullough says. The Kostoff analysis also does not take into account the fact that there are safe and effective treatments.
It bases its assumptions on the notion that there aren’t any. It also doesn’t factor in the fact that the COVID shots are utterly ineffective against the Delta and other variants. If you take into account vaccine failure against variants and alternative treatments, it skews the analysis even further toward natural infection being the safest alternative.
FDA and CDC Should Not Run Vaccine Programs
While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the CDC claim not a single death following COVID inoculation was caused by the shot, they should not be the ones making that determination, as they are both sponsoring the vaccination campaign.
They have an inherent bias. When you conduct a trial, you would never allow the sponsor to tell you whether the product was the cause of death, because you know they’re biased.
What we need is an external group, a critical event committee, to analyze the deaths being reported, as well as a data safety monitoring board. These should have been in place from the start, but were not.
Had they been, the program would most likely have been halted in February, as by then the number of reported deaths, 186, already exceeded the tolerable threshold of about 150 (based on the number of injections given). Now, we’re well over 17,000.7 There’s no normal circumstance under which that would ever be allowed.
“The CDC and FDA are running the [vaccination] program. They are NOT the people who typically run vaccine programs,” McCullough says. “The drug companies run vaccine programs.
When Pfizer, Moderna, J&J ran their randomized trials, we didn’t have any problems. They had good safety oversight. They had data safety monitoring boards. The did OK. I mean I have to give the drug companies [credit].
But the drug companies are now just the suppliers of the vaccine. Our government agencies are now just running the program. There’s no external advisory committee. There’s no data safety monitoring board. There’s no human ethics committee. NO one is watching out for this!
And so, the CDC and FDA pretty clearly have their marching orders: ‘Execute this program; the vaccine is safe and effective.’ They’re giving no reports to Americans. No safety reports. We needed those once a month. They haven’t told doctors which is the best vaccine, which is the safest vaccine.
They haven’t told us what groups are to watch out for. How to mitigate risks. Maybe there are drug interactions. Maybe it’s people with prior blood clotting problems or diabetes. They’re not telling us anything!
They literally are blindsiding us, and with no transparency, and Americans now are scared to death. You can feel the tension in America. People are walking off the job. They don’t want to lose their jobs, but they don’t want to die of the vaccine! It’s very clear. They say, ‘Listen, I don’t want to die. That’s the reason I’m not taking the vaccine.’ It’s just that clear.”
Bradford Hill Criteria Are Met — COVID Jabs Cause Death
Covid Vaccines are Epic Failure: McCullough goes on to explain the Bradford Hill criterion for causation, which is one of the ways by which we can actually determine that, yes, the shots are indeed killing people. We’re not dealing with coincidence.
“The first question we’d ask is: ‘Does the vaccine have a mechanism of action, a biological mechanism of action, that can actually kill a human being?’ And the answer is yes! because the vaccines all use genetic mechanisms to trick the body into making the lethal spike protein of the virus.
It is very conceivable that some people take up too much messenger RNA; they produce a lethal spike protein in sensitive organs like the brain or the heart or elsewhere. The spike protein damages blood vessels, damages organs, causes blood clots. So, it’s well within the mechanism of action that the vaccine could be fatal.
Someone could have a fatal blood clot. They could have fatal myocarditis. The FDA has official warnings of myocarditis. They have warnings on blood clots. They have warnings on a fatal neurologic condition called Guillain-Barré syndrome. So, the FDA warnings, the mechanism of action, clearly say it’s possible.
The second criteria is: ‘Is it a large effect?’ And the answer is yes! This is not a subtle thing. It’s not 151 versus 149 deaths. This is 15,000 deaths. So, it’s a very large effect size, a large effect.
The third [criteria] is: ‘Is it internally consistent?’ Are you seeing other things that could potentially be fatal in VAERS? Yes! We’re seeing heart attacks. We’re seeing strokes. We’re seeing myocarditis. We’re seeing blood clots, and what have you. So, it’s internally consistent.
‘Is it externally consistent?’ That’s the next criteria. Well, if you look in the MHRA, the yellow card system in England, the exact same thing has been found. In the EudraVigilance system in [Europe] the exact same thing’s been found.
So, we have actually fulfilled all of the Bradford Hill criteria. I’ll tell you right now that COVID-19 vaccine is, from an epidemiological perspective, causing these deaths or a large fraction.”
Zero Tolerance for Elective Drugs Causing Death
Covid Vaccines are Epic Failure: There may be cases in which a high risk of death from a drug might be acceptable. If you have a terminal incurable disease, for example, you may be willing to experiment and take your chances. Under normal circumstances however, lethal drugs are not tolerated.
After five suspected deaths, a drug will receive a black box warning. At 50 deaths, it will be removed from the market. Considering COVID-19 has a less than 1% risk of death across age groups, the tolerance for a deadly remedy is infinitesimal. At over 17,000 reported deaths, which in real numbers may exceed 212,000,8 the COVID shots far surpass any reasonable risk to protect against symptomatic COVID-19. As noted by McCullough:
“There is zero tolerance for electively taking a drug or a new vaccine and then dying! There’s zero tolerance for that. People don’t weigh it out and say, ‘Oh well, I’ll take my chances and die.’ And I can tell you, the word got out about vaccines causing death in early April [2021], and by mid-April the vaccination rates in the United States plummeted …
We hadn’t gotten anywhere near our goals. Remember, President Biden set a goal [of 70% vaccination rate] by July 1. We never got there because Americans were frightened by their relatives, people in their churches and their schools dying after the vaccine.
They had heard about it, they saw it. There was an informal internet survey done several months ago, where 12% of Americans knew somebody who had died after the vaccine.
I’m a doctor. I’m an internist and cardiologist. I just came from the hospital … I had a woman die of the COVID-19 vaccine … She had shot No. 1. She had shot No. 2. After shot No. 2, she developed blood clots throughout her body. She required hospitalization. She required intravenous blood thinners. She was ravaged. She had neurologic damage.
After that hospitalization, she was in a walker. She came to my office. I checked for more blood clots. I found more blood clots. I put her back on blood thinners. I saw her about a month later. She seemed like she was a little better. Family was really concerned. The next month I got called by the Dallas Coroner office saying she’s found dead at home.
Most of us don’t have any problem with vaccines; 98% of Americans take all the vaccines … I think most people who are still susceptible would take a COVID vaccine if they knew they weren’t going to die of it or be injured. And because of these giant safety concerns, and the lack of transparency, we’re at an impasse.
We’ve got a very labor-constrained market. We’ve got people walking off the job. We’ve got planes that aren’t going to fly, and it’s all because our agencies are not being transparent and honest with America about vaccine safety.”
Early Treatment Is Crucial, Vaxxed or Not
Covid Vaccines are Epic Failure: As noted by McCullough, the vast majority of patients require hospitalization for COVID-19 is because they’ve not received any treatment and the infection has been allowed free reign for days on end.
“To this day, the patients who get hospitalized are largely those who receive no early care at home,” he says. “They’re either denied care or they don’t know about it, and they end up dying.
The vast majority of people who die, die in the hospital; they don’t die at home. And the reason why they end up in the hospital, it’s typically two weeks of lack of treatment. You can’t let a fatal illness brew for two weeks at home with no treatment, and then start treatment very late in the hospital. It’s not going to work.
There’s been a very good set of analyses, one in the Journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases … that showed, day by day, one loses the opportunity of reducing the hospitalization when monoclonal antibodies are delayed … No doctor should be considered a renegade when they order FDA [emergency use authorized] monoclonal antibody. The monoclonal antibodies are just as approved as the vaccines.
I just had a patient over the weekend, fully vaccinated, took the booster. A month after the booster she went on a trip to Dubai. She just came back, and she got COVID-19! … I got her a monoclonal antibody infusion that day. [The following day] she started the sequence of multidrug therapy for COVID-19. I am telling you, she is going to get through this illness in a few days …
Podcaster Joe Rogan just went through this. Governor Abbott was also a vaccine failure. He went through it. Former President Trump went through it. Americans should see the use of monoclonal antibodies in high risk patients, followed by drugs in an oral sequenced approach. This is standard of care!
It is supported by the Association of Physicians and Surgeons, the Truth for Health Foundation, the American Front Line Doctors, and the Front Line Critical Care Consortium. This is not renegade medicine. This is what patients should have. This is the correct thing! …
If we can’t get the monoclonal antibodies, we certainly use hydroxychloroquine, supported by over 250 studies, ivermectin, supported by over 60 studies, combined with azithromycin or doxycycline, inhaled budesonide … full-dose aspirin … nutraceuticals including zinc, vitamin D, vitamin C, quercetin, NAC … we do oral and nasal decontamination with povidone-iodine.
In acutely sick patients we do it every four hours, [and it] massively reduces the viral load … Fortunately, we have enough doctors now and enough patient awareness, patients who … understand that early treatment is viable, is necessary, and it should be executed.”
Sources
- 1, 6 Toxicology Reports September 2021; 8: 1665-1684
- 2 Retraction Watch October 4, 2021
- 3 Covid19.healthdata.org
- 4, 5 European Journal of Epidemiology September 30, 2021
- 7 OpenVAERS Data as of October 15, 2021
- 8 SKirsch.io/vaccine-resources
About the author
Dr. Joseph Mercola is the founder of Mercola.com. An osteopathic physician, best-selling author and recipient of multiple awards in the field of natural health, his primary vision is to change the modern health paradigm by providing people with a valuable resource to help them take control of their health.
(2 of 2)
Dr. Jensen reported that he has been repeatedly contacted by CDC to correctly report his patients died of Covid when he wrote heart failure, for example, on the death certificate(to which Jensen promptly told them to not call back, and he is currently facing his 5th medical license review). This is how motorcycle accident victims were being described as having died “from” Covid. So, based on all of this, 35K deaths attributable to a disease when the patient truly died because health care was withheld? Yea, I think that is a fair estimate. It is just my opinion, but it seems reasonable to support this conclusion given the gross false positives, and forced false reporting and the general corruption involved in obtaining the larger figure.
I think the vaccines are enormously over-rated in their efficacy. I think they cause the deaths of millions of people following the vaccinations, and these are counted with the unvaccinated which causes the false perception of high vaccine benefit and low vaccine cost/risk. There is an hypothesis of autoimmunity caused by the spike which is becoming more certain which can easily explain this. I can’t answer for the Bayesian modeling employed in the calculations, but I will note that when anyone contradicts Kostoff, they suggest that he is too extreme in his discounts, but never suggests some other value, ie they say 94% discount on deaths is too much, but don’t suggest it should be 30% or 50% or any other value, because there is no explicit rationale to support such a claim. FDA has accepted that upto 94% of deaths are false positive and when using cycle thresholds of 40, they can not find any virus present, noting that the cutoff for actual virus is cycle thresholds of 33 or less. For example, in samples with 30 cycle thresholds, only 63% had any live viruses.
They didn’t need to use this less useful PCR test, as they could have demonstrated the actual virus being present by testing the samples for the actual genetic code itself(genomic sequencing). It isn’t a cheap test and the test takes about 8hrs and the equipment is expensive, but all of this was also true with PCR before the govt paid a princely sum to the labs to get the equipment and run the PCR tests round the clock. With genomic sequencing, everyone would know specifically, not only if they had Covid, but also what variant they had – but that would have shown the true results, so there would be no guessing and that would have shown, if Kostoff is correct, that there was no pandemic, no need for lockdowns to destroy the economy, no need to pay enormous sums to Pharma for a vaccine and…
It is very true, we don’t know because we don’t want to know, or more accurately, the medical establishment doesn’t want us to know. The continued use of the less useful PCR, which is purposefully used at rates known to create fake cases which puts these false positives in harms way is highly suggestive of a desire to hide reality. The use of selective testing on only unvaccinated people does the same thing. Describing 80% of people who are die following the vaccine as being unvaccinated does this as well. These are all massive detractors from any reality in the deaths. And recall that Italy recently reduced their deaths from over 130K to under 4K after reviewing all the death certificates individually – ie it was not an estimated reduction based on percentages.
Hope this helps. Let me know if something is unclear. I am curious of your own thoughts on this topic, and anyone else who will share their views…
/2
@Adam
(1 of 2)
No, they have not. Kostoff’s report contained an error with the authors and was pulled and resubmitted due to the error – the editor of the journal was a co-author and was mistakenly listed as the editor of the paper, a no-no in journal publications, so they had to republish it with the correct handling editor listed. There were no additional data collected or reported in the reprint, and the reprint was the version that I read. Kostoff did state in the report that a more fair estimate and a less best case scenario should be done in the future and I suspect we may see that in the next several months.
Kostoff did determine that from Jan-May, only 35K people died ‘from’ Covid. It is an estimate and we will never be able to know if his estimate is correct. Thousands of labs, millions of tests and estimates of 90-97%false positives… The simple reality is that his determination to delete 94% of the deaths was fairly based. It doesn’t mean it was accurate, ie that these false positives did not die of Covid. If, for instance, someone was falsely diagnosed with Covid, but they came in for dialysis, they might have died of Covid after catching it due to a lack of care while being kept in the Covid wards. Or they might just as easily have died after developing Hospital Acquired Pneumonia(HAP) which is very common, especially if the patient was not being routinely turned/rotated as per normal protocol, which was halted when the epidemic began in 2020 – all Covid patients not being maintained properly could also developed and died of HAP, it is very common in hospital settings which is why it was anticipated in pre-Covid patient care protocols.
I would note further, though, that the patients who died of Covid, actually died, and still die, only from a want of care rather than succumbing to the disease in most cases. There are dozens of doctors such as Farreed, Zelenko, Didier, and others, who each treated thousands of patients and lost none or a couple. Zelenko treated 7K and lost 2. Farreed treated 6300 and lost not one. The people they treated were sick people, in many cases, and literally none died because they were treated. The disease is very successfully treatable, but you have to treat it as if your life depends upon timely treatment, because, as with any serious disease, it does.
Also, early in 2020, before they had covid tests, everyone with any signs similar to Covid were diagnosed on presumption, added to the Covid wards and left without treatment, as per protocol. Don’t forget also, the PCR false positive could be a broken piece of dead virus, a complete but dead virus, some other virus that was closely related to SARS-Cov2, or simply a false positive, ie the test simply failed. The FDA and WHO know these facts, which is why they ask that people who have no reason to be tested(neither ill nor exposed), to not be tested. Yet, last year the people were just getting tested for Covid for any reason, no reason or while going to hospital for something else.
Also, hospitals were going bankrupt last year, but if they could qualify for govt support, they would get billions of govt dollars. How did they qualify – having enough positive cases of Covid – otherwise, they would simply go bankrupt.
/1
Everyone should watch this.
With all due respect, Dr. Lev is lying. Does anyone believe he has not seen the numbers in VAERS?
https://twitter.com/efenigson/status/1461710181369270276
In any event I found the statement of health experts to be informative:
So even as their testing would suggest that their policy is failing they attest there is no failure, but only a delayed victory :O . Hence, it is not that they have failed in ending the 4th wave with the onset of a 5th wave, it is just that they still haven’t stopped winning with the 4th wave because they have someone else they can inject with their redefined winning strategy…
The greater problem is not that their leaky vaccine strategy can’t win. The greater problem is that they will never honestly accept that their Golden Calf strategy has lost. They corrupt the language with old words redefined with new meanings and old standards of success are redefined with new measures of non-strategic ‘victories’. In doing so, they ignore the reality that there is no potential of victory to stop a plague if you can not stop its spread. No matter how many commercials you show, how many politicians you buy, no matter the legislatures you corrupt or the judges you own, the vaccines can not stop the spread of disease and since this is not possible, the demand for more sales of their snake oil will only increase as it will never solve the problem for which it claims to hold the only cure.
As the disease is left untreated in the population, cooking a stew of new lethal variants, the plague will continue. We stand on the eve of 2022 and yet we are still employing a flu treatment dated from 2019 – these vaccines are not specific to Delta, they weren’t specific to Gamma, nor Beta, nor Alpha. They ignore expiration dates while supplanting treatments with imaginative vaccines designed against the Wuhan strain in China which is long extinct now. They claim to have created this “vaccine” in hours and yet 2yrs have passed since they have taken the effort to design a “vaccine” against a single variant, even as Delta has over 20 daughter variants now. And as they claim no responsibility for the mutations caused by their anti-spike treatment, they never explain why or how anything other than a specifically anti-spike treatment could actually cause mutations only at the spike. No doubt, we will soon have a new definition of the word ‘mutation’ to bring even less clarity to this new world they have designed which can add to the mental-abyss in which vaccines don’t prevent spread or disease, and in which medications can’t be used to treat the ill.
/2
The R0, the rate at which the virus is reproducing, is now rising with a value of 1 and the virus is spreading anew, per case counts in iMOH. I love history. It is a great teacher, but it only teaches us when we listen to its lessons. If you look back a year ago you will find a rising R0 with a value of 1.02 on Nov 2. Much has changed in this past year but it seems that seasonal impacts have not been affected by even this recent 3rd jab campaign. Someone might alert JPOST and the posing “health experts” referenced in this article who chose to use this “new” terrifying seasonal trend to support injecting children. Open some window, stabilize Vit. D and drink more water to blanch the seasonality.
In truth this R0 value has less significance than people place upon it, as it is not a measure of the virus’ effect on the general public but rather, only upon the tested public based on PCR tests that inherently have a vastly greater rate of false positives as the disease is less present in the public, such irony can not be supplied amongst greatest works of fiction. That being stated the increase is supported by a reduced decline in hospitalizations, the rate of which inprovement of which seems to have been cut in half, which may be significant or simply the nature of those hospitalized.
/
@peloni. Many thanks, Peloni, for all of this valuable information about the Kostoff report. I have some follow-up questions. You know me, I need to have everything simplified for me to understand it.
How many people does the Kostoff team think had died of the vaccines in the U.S. during the period that he studied? How many do they think died of Covid19 during the same period?
Have they updated these figures for the period in 202i since May, when the time period of the study ended? I seem to have read that they later updated these figures through October. If so, what are their estimates for vaccine-related deaths for January through October 2021? And how many deaths from the covid19-2 virus for the same period?
I seem to remember that Kostoff’ believes that the official numbers of covid19 deaths is vastly exaggereated, and that he thinks that covid19 was the primary cause of death of only about 35,000 people this year. Is it true that that is his estimate?
My key question: Do you think that Kostoff’s numbers are ballpark accurate, or inaccurate? I will greatly value your opinion on this topic.
I have had an exhausing day today, so I have to get to sleep early, and I have another very busy day tomorrow, and have to get up early. I won’t be able to read your response until around 1pm EST, or about 8pm Israeli time. If you have not had the time to respond to my questions by then, I will have no problem if you don’t get back to me until Sunday, or later. Or whenever is convenient for you. I won’t ask you to reply on the Sabbath. Many thanks again, Adam
(2 of 2)
Since his publication, we also know the Pfizer study was greatly impaired in accurate death reports and reports of “unclean data”, for what it’s worth.
Kostoff concluded that the greatest harms of the virus were exponentially higher in the elderly with increases in every age group. Hence, the benefit of the shots would be greatest felt by those suffering the greatest harms, the elderly who were >65yrs. He further suggested that any benefit in younger ages could only be exponentially reduced with increasing younger age ranges.
To pursue his calculations and modeling, he derived a risk of death per inoculation to be 0.000032 based on the inoculations and excess deaths. There is an average of Covid deaths, per CDC in this age group, of 0.0087. By dividing 0.000032/0.0087, we can see that without adjustment this brings the chance of dying from Inoculation relative to the chance of dying from Covid to be 0.0037 or 1/270. This is an unadjusted figure and the over counting of false positives and the under-counting of VAERS each must be applied to this figure to relate a realistic measure of the cost-benefit. The range of over-counting of false positives has been reported to be between 90-97% and as 94% as described by CDC. Furthermore, the under-counting of VAERS is based upon Kostoff’s own findings and a study on VAERS 10yrs ago. The Harvard-Pilgrim study was financed by the FDA to determine the under-counting figure apparent in VAERS. They determined it to be about 1% and noted that this could fluctuate to be as high as 10%. Kostoff did his own modeling to demonstrate, on a global scale, the accurate reporting of deaths was 1%. He also considered a 30-day tracking analysis which demonstrated a accuracy of death reporting rate of 1%. He also found that if he looked more focally in the a more limited population of deaths in a 10-day window around the shots, the accuracy of reported death rate increased to 3.5%. He ultimately based his final calculations upon the global figure, presumably because it was based on a larger population, and was supported by both the Harvard-Pilgrim study results and the 30-day study results, each of which held a greater value than a smaller 10-day sample window surrounding the shot, hence a 100X reporting factor based upon empirical findings.
The work of Rose(https://cf5e727d-d02d-4d71-89ff-9fe2d3ad957f.filesusr.com/ugd/adf864_a0a813acbfdc4534a8cb50cf85193d49.pdf) and Kirsch(https://www.skirsch.com/covid/Deaths.pdf) each pursued this topic of the Under Reporting Figure separately. Rose used the Significant Adverse Effects, where the subject was hospitalized, in the Pfizer study last year, which we now know was greatly erred and based on reported “unclean data” and fraudulently non-reported SAE’s which will actually directly reduce Rose’s calculations. Kirsch based his calculations of the under-reporting factor on the data suggested by the FDA in a paper from 2015, where it suggests using anaphylaxis shock, a key SAE which should always be reported as it directly has implications for the drug involved when it elevates the normal level of shock. Rose came up with a URF of 31 and Kirsch determined a level of 41. Kirsch notes that there have been a total of 8 similar analyses conducted to arrive at an acceptable under reporting figure and all have arrived at similarly large findings, most clustering 30-40x and as high as 100X. They have asked the CDC for their interpretation of the under reporting factor and have never received a response, presumably because they would have to prove any number they assigned, ie they would need to assign a rationale.
This is a brief review of Kostoff’s work and his comments are easily read but not brief by any standard. He reviews the issues of the testing the EUA studies and VAERS as they are each related to his analysis. Hope this helps explain his report somewhat.
/2
(1 of 2)
@Adam
You will have to accept my appology for a rather significant delay on the Kostoff report. Its length was not as significant as I anticipated, but the scope of his undertaking was enormously broad, and to gain a better appreciation of his findings I found it necessary to pursue several other similarly lengthy reports, two of which I speak on below.
Background:
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/confirmation-of-vaccine-associated
Kostoff’s report(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X#bib0480) is not so deep in medicine as it is in data analysis and the relevant portions of his paper are actually the several sections of appendices. In his report, Kostoff used the inoculation number rather than actual number of people inoculated to normalized those receiving the inoculation. He conjectured that this would give the findings of his analysis to be the best case scenario as it under-corrects for the overwhelming number of people who receive 2-shots, ie his 5X increase in harms is realistically closer to 10X. He also included all shots between Dec-May 2021 and considered only the deaths from Jan-May 2021.
He presumed the shots were 100% protective, so any deaths would not be due to the virus following injection. He also used the number of +65yrs who died in Jan-May 2019 as a base line of normal deaths in this age group to remove any death expected from non-vaccine causes. He also used the median time of inoculations in Jan-May 2021(period when half the shots were before and half afterwards) to determine the relative period between when shots were administered to a rough approximation of when the deaths occurred. His modeling based on these data determined a 1% reporting rate of deaths following inoculation. To gain further insight on this determination, ie the modeling, you will have to have a knowledge of bio-statistics, data analysis and modeling for which I have no background or training to assess. These are the tools and trades of a epidemiologists, so I would refer you to the assessments by the likes of Risch, McCullough and Ionnidas – Ionnidas was known to be the highest credited epidemiologist prior to the Covid outbreak. I am, however, not aware of any such evaluation or comment beyond McCullough, for what it is worth. Rose has commented on Kostoff’s findings several times and noted that his examination preferred to use empirical interpretations, whereas she employed the actual EUA trial data that the vaccine program’s validity and efficacy was hinged upon. Kostoff finds the EUA trials to be unhelpful due to, among other reasons,
/1
McCullogh; I respect his authority, but Mercola is only an osteopath, a glorified term for a bonesetter. He’s the guy who, when your thumb goes out of joint, can pull it back into position. A third cousin of a chiropractor, but not nearly as “qualified”. When they (both) take “fees” they’re stealing them.
A good masseur is far more accomplished.
A little vignette: some years ago, I was living in Nanaimo B.C. In desperation I went to a chiropractor. The socialized medical care allows 12 visits in any given year. (I think) . They crack your back the way you crack your knuckles. It means nothing and gives the guy some exercise. In this, my only visit, I happened to look in a mirror in his studio. I saw myself with muscles bulging everywhere….. I WAS very muscular, but not like Popeye after he ate the can of spinach, which was what I saw in the mirror.
I later made enquiries from a medical supplier and confirmed what I’d suspected. It was a special chiropractors (distorting) mirror.
By the way, what was wrong with me was a lopsided spinal disc, which a few years later, ruptured, needing surgery. The “specialist” brought to the hospital by my GP seemed shifty, so I asked for a second opinion. I was carted down to Victoria, to an internationally renowned neurologist and back specialist. His tests showed that the disc which needed cleaning out, was the disc ABOVE that which the shifty “specialist” had diagnosed.
@Reader
Good point. Unfortunately, your observation here is as relevant as the claim that the vaccine was safe and 95% effective, and by that I mean it isn’t relevant because there isn’t a statistical difference between 17 deaths and 21 deaths in a pool of nearly 40K people.
Based on what was recorded in the data, there was not enough evidence present to generate a statistical difference between the vaccine group and the placebo group, not on efficacy, not on disease presentation and not on deaths. This was true with the “efficacy” and it was true with the deaths. “Garbage” data as Dr. Malone has described it on more than one occasion. So the 6 deaths more that occured in the vaccine arm is not good, but it is not statistically different from the placebo arm as the data was recorded.
They should never have allowed the vaccines to go forward on such non-data data. Out of nearly 40K subjects split into 2 groups, less than 200 participants became ill. But neither the deaths nor the ill rose to a significant difference based on the recorded data. In light of the blood clots and cardiovascular injuries we now are aware, it is interesting that there were 4heart attacks in the vaccine group but only 1 in the placebo group. So a 4X increase in the vaccine arm, but still not a statistical difference based on the recorded data. The phrase ‘recorded data’ is significant, however.
When they skipped Phase II, where the vaccine injuries were determined, it gave those conducting the Phase II/III trial a great deal of unopposed and uncontested authority to judge any inconvenient situation as unrelated and ignore the associated safety concerns.
For example, I am not sure if you and others are aware that Maddie de Garay, who was a 13yr child, one of only 1129 children in the trial, that became paralyzed within 24hrs of the vaccine injection was recorded as having a stomach issue and dropped from the study without any record of her disabling disease. She is paralyzed for life and they claimed it was all in her head. There was no record of any disabling disease in the trial, and since there was no Phase II where the neurological disorders should have been detected, it was left to the Phase III to both isolate each adverse event and confirm its relavence to the vaccine. By ignoring her condition in the combo Phase II/III, they solved two problems at once by simply not recording it and there was nothing to confirm, deny or comment on. We still wouldn’t know about her condition if she hadn’t gone public. Recall Maddie was 1 of only 1K children which means that her disease rate was 1/1000 children. So, there was no seriously disabling disease recorded in the trial, so everyone was shocked when the seriously disabling disease occured following the vaccine, but those experiencing it were assured that there was no such event on ‘record’ from the trials and deemed it as a psychological consequence of stress, ie the patients were imagining their disabling disease.
Additionally it has recently claimed by a whistleblower with photographic evidence of at least some claims questioning if the data “was good clean data”. The level of fraud and questionable data surrounding that trial was scandalous and, yet, no one will be investigated, charged or penalized for any of this. Just scandalous.
@Adam
Also, another possible cause of filling hospitals might be a relative filling of hospitals rather than an actual filling of hospitals. By this I am referencing the compounding error caused by the ridiculous and purposeful reduction in healthcare workers in the midst of an anticipated rise in need of hospital beds, which could cause the hospitals filling prematurely due to the reduced staff. The lower staff members will cause fewer patients to be taken in, so the hospitals will fill with fewer patients. They will initially do what is known as breaking the ratios, where the established ratio of patients to a a single nurse, for example, will overload and take on more cases, but this can only be pushed so far, beyond which point the hospitals will have fewer beds available due to limits of staff and not beds. So this could afford the false impression of full hospitals with fewer patients. From the reports that I have heard about, though, this is not the issue, but these are isolated reports and I am not sure if the trend is more generally based or not.
@Adam
The reports of increased non-Covid hospitalizations and deaths have been mounting for the past two months, roughly. You will likely recall the increase in all cause mortality has also been seen to increase and is significantly higher than it was in 2020 in many areas. One point of concern is that the books on this year’s deaths will correct higher over time due to late paperwork being completed and the final death tally won’t be finalized til next year, so the excess deaths will likely increase, perhaps slightly or not, in that time.
I don’t think we can conclude that this is specific to the vaccines, necessarily, but, as I noted to Bear recently, we are not doing autopsies to pursue certainty on the causation and that would only occur because of those in authority are determined not to chance any proof being linked to their vaccines. Stated differently, if they thought it was due to the virus alone, they would pursue such details very quickly and very closely. It may well be a result of the untreated viral infections and the vaccine both having a causative role, as they each have the toxic spike present in unquantified numbers but by different routes and with different concentrations. I know the overwhelming majority of the athletes are vaccinated, so it may well be true that it is only the vaccines are causing this tragedy, but I hold a concern that this bio-weapon that was included in the vaccines may have two sources, ie both the untreated viral infection and the vaccine.
Dr. Cole is currently pursuing many many autopsies in connection with several other labs to identify the causes of these increases in clots, heart ailments and cancers. During a Q&A with medical physicians recently, he specifically stated that there appeared to be an increased link with the vaccines in regards to the cancers, but he did not address the increased clots and cardiovascular issues specifically.
Someone recently examined the excess deaths trends in Israel during the recent vaccine/outbreak in August. They noted that the excess deaths were exaggerated over 2020 as I discussed above and which confirmed Ran Israel’s previous reporting. But there was another point of interest in this more recent analysis that the Jerusalem area where vaccine uptake was low also had a lower excess death trend – ie it was more similar to 2020 numbers. This was for the single month of August and the death tally may not have been completed or some other factor such as seasonality may catch things up over time. So this might just be a red herring or it might be substantially significant indicating the vaccines are the cause.
See this video by Epic Economist on YouTube:”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX7PYiLRHaM
This commentator reports that emergency rooms throughout the United States are crowded with patients, as are EMS units, even though the number of them who are suffering from covid19 is way down. Yet hospitals are being deluged, he says, with patients suffering from other ailments, especially heart and circulary illnesses. He calls particular attention to the many young athletes, previously thought to be in excellent health, who have suddenly collapsed on the playing field and had to be taken to hospital, where they were diagnosed as suffering from heart conditions. A few at least have died. Other have required prolonged hospitalization.
Blood clots are another frequent cause of hospitalization.
“Epic Economist” doesn’t say what is causing this spike (no pun intended) in circulatory illnesses. He asks readers to give him any information they have which might shed light on this crisis.
I think on the basis of what we have learned from Peloni, McCullough, Kostoff and several dozen other physicians and medical scientists, we may reasonably conclude that adverse reactions to the vaccines are likely to be the main cause of this sudden increase in circulatory and other illnesses.
@Adam
I don’t believe my comment was cavalier. This article cites Dr. McCullough’s analysis and comments on the Kostoff report and are quite significant, which is why I stated everyone should read it, and they should. McCullogh is however a trained epidemiologist and medical researcher with the added insights of his expertise on Covid treatments. All of this adds to his input, which is displayed in this article as being well valued.
I don’t find any mention in my comment that McCullough is critical of the Kostoff report and I am not sure what drew you to conclude that McCullough wrote a review of the Kostoff report. He is not critical of the report and he did not write a critique of it. McCullough is a walking encyclopedia of data, and the world’s expert on treatments which becomes more important with the vaccines failures to prevent infection, spread and disease. He is not God as you note, but his comments above offer a context yet to be shared on this topic in print which is why I highlighted it.
McCullough not only supports Kostoff’s findings by citing the lack of treatment and oversight, which has been well discussed, but he also extends beyond the Kostoff analysis using the critical standard of epidemiological causation, the Bradford-Hill criteria, linking the vaccines to “causing these deaths or a large fraction.”
His discussion of causation is very important. In truth, the importance of being able to relate causation to the disease is vital and is routinely ignored, but it has been addressed several times by Drs. Rose and others linking the vaccine deaths to vaccines, but this is the first time I have seen the Bradford-Hill analysis discussed in popular print. It is not a small point and McCullough does an excellent job of briefly discussing this topic while maintaining the heart of it(Rose does a much better, but lengthy analysis on causality but it is directly linked to her area of study) which is, again why everyone should read his comments closely.
Additionally, he draws out the importance of the deterministic challenge of the shot vs the virus. When you receive the shot, the consequences of the shot are 100% accepted – eg, myocarditis, shock, disabling disease each have their own associated increase risk but only because of a person being injected, and this risk is 100% present to everyone being injected. Those who do not take the shot have only a margin of chance of contracting the virus, say it is a 10% chance, or whatever you rationally believe is true, but it is not 100%. To be harmed by the virus you need to overcome the odds of contracting the virus and only then do you face the risk of surviving the virus and its many challenges. To face the harms of the vaccine, you only need to be vaccinated, ie everyone being vaccinated is facing that lottery of harm, so to speak, while those who are not vaccinated do not face any harm until they are exposed to the virus and then only if they establish an infection. The vaccine also has additional toxic harms beyond the presence of spike which causes toxicity, due at minimum, to the toxic PEG, toxic SM-102 and the toxic lipid nanoparticle, which goes everywhere in the body. Let me know if this is unclear
The comments in this article posted by Ted partially cover McCullough’s interview on the Kostoff report that has been released today:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/oIq0OTFmdy4I/
I don’t mean McCullough’s comments to encompass my own thoughts, but they are quite important in characterizing Kostoff’s findings, which has become something of an expanding issue as it has grown to incorporate not only Kostoff’s very lengthy report, but also the lengthy works of Walach, Rose and Kirsch, each of whom have tackled this same topic from different aspects. This is why I am still not prepared to offer you a fair summary of Kostoff’s report, yet.
Here is Kostoff’s lengthy study:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X#!
Watch McCullough’s video and I hope to have a summary on Kostoff shortly.
Peloni, I gather from what you write that Dr. McCullough has written a critique of the Castoff-Elsevier study. Could you please provide us with a link to that critique?
This New Peer-Reviewed Article Could Be a Game-Changer
Rob Jenkins
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
This New Peer-Reviewed Article Could Be a Game-Changer
Source: AP Photo/Lynne Sladky, File
Every now and then, right in the middle of the ongoing politicization of our universities and public health institutions, some actual science breaks out, almost spontaneously, as if it simply can’t be contained. Science, after all, is the pursuit of truth, and in Shakespeare’s immortal phrase, fromThe Merchant of Venice, “Truth will out.”
Such is the case with a recent article published in Toxicology Reports by Ronald N. Kostoff, et al., titled “Why are we vaccinating children against Covid-19?”According to Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA technology used to produce the current Covid “vaccines,” the article is peer-reviewed and appears in a reputable journal. It is not a new “study” but rather an in-depth analysis of existing data from various government sources. And it isn’t just about children. It basically confirms everything Team Reality has been saying since the push for mass vaccination began.
In early August, in an op-ed for The Washington Times, Malone and former Trump advisor Peter Navarro (one of the driving forces behind Operation Warp Speed) called for a halt to the Biden administration’s mass vaccination program, which they argued will do more harm than good. Instead, they said, we should target the most vulnerable while allowing those at lower risk to make their own cost-benefit analysis. They likened over-vaccination to overuse of antibiotics and warned that it could produce vaccine-resistant strains or “variants.”
Looking at the latest data from Israel, the UK, and even the northeastern United States, one might conclude that Malone and Navarro were prescient—and this article certainly reinforces that impression.
But for people like me, who already find Malone’s and Navarro’s argument compelling, isn’t this a classic example of confirmation bias? Aren’t we just looking for anything that seems to support our preconceived notions while ignoring evidence to the contrary? That’s a fair question. We certainly see a lot of confirmation bias in the corporate media these days. But, in my case, I would say the answer is “No.”
For one thing, like most on Team Reality, I’ve looked pretty carefully at all sides of this issue, trying to discern what is actually true. Honestly, the other side’s argument—“every single person, regardless of age or medical history, must get vaccinated forthwith and you’re a horrible person if you think that’s the least bit extreme”—is hard to miss. It’s everywhere these days, even interrupting my Saturday afternoon college football games.
But more importantly, the article itself is highly persuasive—and I suspect that’s true whichever side of the issue you currently inhabit. It is thorough and factual, its logic inescapable. And the fact that it’s peer-reviewed means an anonymous panel of fellow scientists—many of whom, we can assume, were not predisposed to agree—found merit in its arguments.
I invite you to read the whole thing for yourself and reach your own conclusions. It’s quite long and highly technical in places, but much of it is relatively accessible, especially the money passages. A few brief excerpts should serve to whet your appetite.
First, from the introduction, here’s what Kostoff, et al. have to say about the roll-out and possible impact of the vaccines: “Clinical trials for these inoculations were very short-term…had samples not representative of the total population, and for adolescents/children, had poor predictive power….Further, the clinical trials did not address changes in biomarkers that could serve as early warning indicators of elevated predisposition to serious diseases….[or] long-term effects that, if serious, would be borne by children/adolescents for potentially decades.”
About the “vaccines” themselves: “A vaccine is legally defined as any substance designed to be administered to a human being for the prevention of one or more diseases….A January 2000 patent application that defined vaccines as ‘compositions or mixtures that when introduced into the circulatory system of an animal will evoke a protective response to a pathogen’ was rejected by the U.S. Patent Office because ‘the immune response produced by a vaccine…must be protective….[It must be] a compound which prevents infection.’ In the remainder of this article, we use the term ‘inoculated’ rather than vaccinated, because the injected material in the present COVID-19 inoculations prevents neither viral infection nor transmission. Since its main function in practice appears to be symptom suppression, it is operationally a ‘treatment.’”
On the reported 600,000-plus Covid deaths: “Most deaths attributed to COVID-19 were elderly with high comorbidities….Attribution of death to one of many possible comorbidities or especially toxic exposures in combinations is highly arbitrary and can be viewed as a political decision more than a medical decision. For over 5% of these deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 4.0 additional conditions or causes per death. These deaths with comorbidities could equally have been ascribed to any of the comorbidities. Thus, the actual number of COVID-19-based deaths in the USA may have been on the order of 35,000 or less, characteristic of a mild flu season.” (Emphasis mine.)
(Personally, I’d be surprised if the actual number of Covid deaths is that low. But I’ve long suspected it’s much lower than reported.)
Ultimately, the authors conclude, “There appears to be modest benefit from the inoculations to the elderly population most at risk, no benefit to the younger population not at risk, and much potential for harm from the inoculations to both populations. It is unclear why this mass inoculation for all groups is being done, being allowed, and being promoted.”
If the information contained in this article becomes widely known to physicians and other healthcare providers, not to mention the general public, it could very well change our attitude toward mass vaccination and lead to the more targeted approach Malone and others advocate. How likely that is to happen, I suppose, depends on how many read the article, draw similar conclusions, and have the courage to act on them.
Recommended Townhall Video
This is a very poorly organized report. Although it does quote some information from the Elsevier-Kostoff report, it creates the impression that it was written by Dr. McCullough, which is inaccurate. It mentions the name of many other vaccine skeptics, but there is only the briefest reference to Kostoff. No mention of the twenty plus other contributers to the report. No reference to the professional credentials. The full name of the publication in which the report DirectScience-Toxicology Reports, was published and its connection with the prestigious Elsevier corporation is not given. No is their any link to the website where it is published so readers can judge for themselves. In effect, Kostoff and his team’s work is buried in a blizzard of references to the opinions of other medical scientists who have no connection with the Kostoff-Elsevier report. Since the Kostoff report is actually the source of the headline claim that the vaccines have killed more people than the covid virus, this failure to clearly identify the source of this claim and the evidence for it is deplorable.
Peloni, please write an article for us that is devoted exclusively to the Elsevier-Kpstoff report and provides the facts about the report and its authors that the Herland Report article leaves out. Provide Israpundit readers with the links to it on the web.
In your comment , you say that Dr. McCullough was critical of the report, and on that basis more or less dismiss it. Dr. McCullough is a brilliant medical scientist. But he is not a god.
Please explain more fully the methodology of the report and sources of the data on which it is based. I know that the Krostofff-Elsevier study is thoroughly documented, with numerous endnotes referring to the authors’ sources of information.
If Kostoff et all are right, their study is a real game-changer. Their study deserves a more thorough and careful analysis than what you have done in your rather cavalier comment.
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/more-people-died-in-the-key-clinical?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
*As in Italy, the deaths attribute to death from Covid were recently downgraded to 3,800 from 130,000 because of similar motivations.
This was timely. Everyone should read this response to the Kostoff report by Dr. McCullough. Kostoff wrote a lengthy report of a cost-benefit analysis based on the data as has been collected in VAERS and by the CDC. Needless to say, all the data that has been collected in response to the pandemic is based upon poor measures. That being said, as I have noted before, data is too precious to ignore simply because it is less than perfect, or even much less than perfect. Safety and efficacy signals will remain even in such poor data. It is true, for example, that the PCR test is fatally flawed and was recalled 5months ago because of this reality. That doesn’t mean we can’t use the results of this test. We know that the PCR has false positive failure rates upto 94%. We also know that the vaccinated are tested less often. We also know that the test sensitivity on the vaccinated is radically lower than for the unvaccinated. Additionally, 80% of the vaccinated who die following vaccination will die within 2wks following their shot, but they are counted as unvaccinated. All of these factors are incorporated in the evaluation which provides a clear and enormous bias towards the infallibility of the vaccine. I don’t say this as an advocate, this is simply a fact, and a fact that any rational minded person should be able to accept as true and valid. Take just one of these facts, the last one where 80% of the vaccinated deaths are counted as unvaccinated. This alone would constitute what is known as survivors bias, as the only cases counted are those who don’t die in the period when nearly all the causalities(80%) that will die, do die. If someone disagrees with this, please, take a minute, think this through carefully and if you still disagree, I would be happy to discuss it further.
Also the CDC Covid deaths throughout 2020-21 have also built-in bias(where do we start). The purposefully elevated Covid deaths provided an adavantage as a political tool to those who wanted to pursue the vaccine and continue the pandemic and a financial windfall to the healthcare industry at large. As in Italy, the deaths atributable to death from Covid were recently downgraded to 3,800 from 130,000. Among the biases Kostoff detected were:
-The use of presumptive diagnosis where entire hospital floors of patients were declared “Covid patients” based on non-specific symptoms and no lab support, -The use of excessively elevated cycle thresholds to over-diagnose false positives for the entire year of 2020.
-Covid occurs in people troubled with other life threatening diseases that might just as likely be the cause of death should they die.
Again, if anyone sees these as not being built-in bias which falsely inflate the Covid deaths, we can discuss it further.
So we need to use all of these facts to interpret what the findings we have collected in both the CDC death data and the VAERS death data to determine an honest cost-benefit analysis. This is what Dr. Kostoff attempted to do with his analysis while providing the the best case scenario for the vaccines, without ignoring everything we know.