A reader objected to my last post in which I questioned "vaccinating" children.  I'd cited Steve Kirsch in the article, linking his slide deck of facts, which is rich with documentation and live links to sources.  The reader countered with a rebuttal from Jeffrey Morris, a Ph.D. from Penn specializing in biostatistics and cancer.  From the expansive Kirsch deck, he picked certain statistics to refute, relying on this statistical information to discredit the whole.

Does Morris make cogent points?  Who is he?  Is he qualified to speak on the subject?  His C.V. shows focused accomplishment within his field.  Interestingly, he published a Philadelphia Inquirer article in April 2020, questioning the effects of the lockdown and testing regimen then in use, as being counterproductive and dangerous to society.  He had a point; in fact, testing is currently being employed as punishment for the unvaccinated, yet it is all but ignored for the vaccinated cohort.

Here's what Morris says about Kirsch's killed vs. saved claim:

They claim to independently validate these results with another dozen or so alternative "methods", but these consist of a series of largely unscientific arguments including anecdotal reports (some unverified), opinions elicited from select clinicians who believe the vaccines are inherently dangerous and/or treatment strategies like Ivermectin are the answer, public polls on whether people "know" more people who have died of COVID-19 or vaccines, and extrapolation of select data with very small sample sizes, often blatantly imputing assumptions that seem directly motivated by their chosen hypothesis.

Hmmm...you mean like the deliberately small sample size of cherry-picked test subjects for the study determining whether the vaccine is safe for children?  No, I don't think that's what Morris was referring to.  He probably also wasn't referring to the fact that they vaccinated the control group in all the vaccine trials as soon as possible afterward, either.  That is not the way you conduct a trial, as it obviously eliminates all meaningful follow-up.

In his dismissal of Kirsch, Morris mentions that the man donated $1 million of his own money to start an early treatment–focused fund, "whose perspective explicitly opposes the current vaccination efforts and could be construed as a conflict."  So finding a way for people to get early treatment for a treatable disease is a conflict of interest in terms of presenting to the CDC?

Have we looked at the conflicts of interest among the CDC cohort?  As I've mentioned in more than a few of my articles, the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the vaccine is valid only if there is no treatment for COVID.  There is treatment — in fact, there are many options, and several are extraordinarily effective.  The EUA shouldn't exist in the first place, given that fact.  If you don't believe me, look at India's COVID stats.

The linked site is flawed, but note the graphs at the bottom.  Ivermectin protocol was started in May.  Look at fluvoxamine, too.  It's harder to find the research there, but what I can find is encouraging.  Yet it is being disallowed as treatment in the U.S., as is ivermectin.  Both interfere with the EUA's validity.

Morris says the "hypothesis" that the case fatality rate is skewed by under-reporting to VAERS "comprises the greatest and most universal medical conspiracy in history, and leads them to infer estimates of 100k to 200k vaccine caused deaths in the USA."

Okay.  He very well may have unwittingly hit the truth!  He goes on to mention "even more extreme" claims made in another study, this one in Toxicology Reports, and states:

Looking at excess all cause death data for the USA, I show that that these claims are completely implausible, with vaccinations occurring during the lowest excess death periods of the pandemic (really?), and the real spikes in excess deaths occurring during viral surges with high levels of confirmed cases and COVID-attributed deaths.

I found it too tedious to dive that deep into his stats, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.  But what about now?  Look at this graph of what's happening in England, right now.  Most cases and deaths are occurring among the vaccinated, not the unvaccinated.

I'm not going to get into the minutiae of how many unreported VAERS cases and deaths there are.  This is the thrust of Kirsch's work and Morris's counterattack, but it's irrelevant to me whether the underreporting factor (URF) is 1 or 41.  If you look at the VAERS data, there are enough verified, reported deaths and serious reactions to have stopped the use of any other vaccine in history, and then some.

As for dismissing anecdotal evidence, sometimes it's wise to listen to it.  For instance, in the Kirsch deck, look at slide 31, which shows a 12-year-old named Maddie, who is permanently paralyzed.  She eagerly enrolled in the Pfizer trial for her age group.  Sadly, she didn't survive the trial intact — but Pfizer listed her as having only "mild abdominal problems" after the jabs.  Total paralysis for life is not a "mild abdominal problem" in my opinion.

You can also look at this alarming report from Europe.  Anecdotal?  Yeah.  But how many elite athletes collapsing, some dying, on the playing field, do you need to make a point?  Historically, 5–8 a year.  So far, 75 this year.  Just in Europe, where at least somebody's paying attention.

Image: Piqsels. 

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.