Can’t tell how reliable this is. He seems to think that it’s an unmistakable conclusion from the data that he and colleagues have gathered widely:
Posted before 
1 Like
Er - I’d better take my pills… 
1 Like
I didn’t probe very deep because this is junk statistics. For a start it uses a self-selected sample, few or no controls to prevent multiple submissions, and manifest other weaknesses. If a dad with four kids died after a Covid jab all four kids (utterly without collusion, or not) could have answered the questionnaire and produced four because-this-then-that results. Kirsch seems to concede this by saying
If the results show a signal, we’ll do a more rigorous survey to confirm the signal.
He doesn’t even bother saying “confirm or disprove”.
None of the above is an endorsement of Big Pharma gangsterism but this is arrant nonsense.
The main source of bias is obvious. I might read his substack and respond, but @PP wouldn’t be reading it. His big outcome may just reflect the bias that is built in. He knows it wouldn’t pass any rigour test.
It’s not valid (so shouldn’t be put round as a claim) but I think it could be regarded as a pre-pilot. Next stage should be a pilot that isn’t biased. Maybe go door to door, or in a public place, to cut out responder bias.
It’s hard to know what do do to cut out biases. If someone dies after a vaccine the jab will stick in the mind but fewer people will know of someone who has a jab booked.
But OTOH, comparing vaccine deaths with covid deaths, the covid side has every bias under the sun in it’s favour.
1 Like
Good points. Unfortunately plenty of others are reposting Kirsch’s SubStack uncritically.
1 Like
Troo. I’m glad he’s well off - wouldn’t want him poached by the other side
You remembered, so you’re okay
1 Like
Just been having a look round Eric Coppolino’s ‘Planet Wave FM’ website. He makes a persuasive sleuthing-journalist’s case about the complete ineffectualness of the RT-PCR process as a diagnostic tool, most particularly above CT of 15.
He says quite bluntly that the process - though still exquisitely effective for its original legitimate purpose - is sure to yield 100% false positives above that CT number; and the WHO and other billionaire-subverted ‘medical’ authorities knew that ahead of time. He concludes this from the library of original documents which, like a proper investigative journalist, he’s been gathering and collating for years; since before the launch of the covid scam, in fact. It smells to me like the sort of evidence that any un-nobbled jury would regard as ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’.
The obvious conclusion is that we have no certain path to knowing how many victims the - alleged - killer covid actually killed; because the ‘test verified’ numbers are - ostensibly - bullshit, across the board. But the assertions of such as Reiner Fuellmich, summarising the expert opinion of all his testifiers, that “there was no pandemic” becomes entirely credible.
The big wave of excess deaths, about which the insurance people have been shouting so aggrievedly, seems to coincide with the first wave of poison-stabs. And the deaths took off from there.
So, this seems to me to be the front-runner hypothesis just now:
The covid flill - whatever it is, whether it was tampered or not - is real; it may have had the - actually real - impact of a bad flu season; and it’s treatable successfully, as numerous pioneer front-line doctors demonstrated rapidly, already within 2020, as I recall; at least five protocols even then.
But all of that distinctly unpanicking reality got deliberately buried under a huge propaganda scam, which set out to use knowingly a fake test which could be easily manipulated to provide as many false positives as the plotters wanted at any particular time, to continue stampeding the unwary.
If this hypothetical outline is accurate, it seems to me that, granting that the VAERS figures are reckoned to be a gross under-report, an estimate of half a million USAmericans dead unnecessarily - strictly from the poison-stabs - is well within the bounds of possibility; hammer out the accuracy-improving details of the stats how you will. The original staw-poll survey may need heavy refinement to get it more accurate. But the estimate is credible.