Factual data are kept away from us like hydrochloric acid in toddlers. Without transparency there is no science, it has had its day now: other things are more important. But numbers matter, so corona activist Steve Kirsch decided to send his followers a small poll with two questions:
- If you know someone who died in 2021 or 2022 from ANY CAUSE, please tell us their age, date of death, and whether the person has had a COVID vaccine or not.
- If you know more than one person, choose the person whose death details you know best.
Hoe betrouwbaar wordt dat nou, zo'n poll, is dat serieus te nemen? De bias ligt voor het oprapen: gaan inzenders gevaccineerde doden rapporteren die in werkelijkheid niet gevaccineerd waren of misschien juist omgekeerd?
Joel Smalley analyzed the data (2,000 submissions so far), did some sanity checks and came to remarkable conclusions. I highlight the most important line.
The answers submitted to the poll show a clear similarity with the CDC's Covid mortality. There seems to be a pretty truthful answer.
(Deviations explained by Joel in the video, link at the bottom)
The vax vs non-vax graph shows that many more unvaccinated people (green line) died than vaccinated people during Covid waves. Seen in this way, the vaccines are therefore very effective. Actually much more effective than we thought: according to this graph, 60% more unvaccinated people have died. This is remarkable because such figures have never been reported anywhere before. So Smalley dived a little deeper.
In de notities valt hem nog iets anders op: de ongevaccineerden hebben andere behandelingen ondergaan dan de gevaccineerden. De ongevaccineerden kregen Remdesivir toegediend en zijn aan de beademing gelegd conform het zogeheten "Fauci-protocol".
After correction for this, the difference has disappeared: whether or not to administer Remdesivir and the way of giving extra oxygen appears to be the distinguishing factor.
Two possible explanations
Optie 1: Men achtte Remdesivir zinloos bij gevaccineerden, omdat hun immuunsysteem al voldoende bewapend was met het vaccin. Misschien zou het zelfs iets van die werking kunnen verstoren. Men vertrouwde dus op de boost van de vaccins. Daarom kregen alleen ongevaccineerden de 'extra' Remdesivir.
Dat er meer ongevaccineerden overleden, zou dan komen door de schadelijke, eigenlijk dodelijke, behandeling. Dat is bijvangst die door deze en gene (Kirsch zelf ook) graag wordt opgepikt en die past in menige reset- en depopulatie-theorie. Zo'n behandeling afdwingen en met een hogere vergoeding stimuleren, dat zou inderdaad op kwade opzet kunnen wijzen. Maar er is ook een andere mogelijkheid die ik daar graag tegenin wil brengen:
Optie 2: De ongevaccineerden gingen sneller achteruit en daarom was het in die groep vaker noodzakelijk om paardenmiddelen in te zetten, die uiteindelijk toch niet hielpen. De gevaccineerden stierven daarentegen 'op eigen kracht'.
Remdesivir and intubation: you have to be a good person to survive that in a weakened state. Where Fauci holds sway, it still happens, because he says that Remdesivir works.
Remdesivir
According to this meta-study, it is between Vitamin C and Paracetamol in terms of effectiveness. See also this study with 11,000 patients.
Andere middelen waren niet toegestaan, alleen dit nieuw ontwikkelde, door Fauci geprezen Remdesivir (en Molnupiravir dat lijkt op ivermectine maar net genoeg ervan verschilt voor een nieuw patent). Vroegbehandeling was uit den boze. Het 80-jaar oude protocol om antibiotica toe te dienen bij longinfecties werd 'ontraden', zie het protocol van 2019:
More info: the tweets of @TheJikky). Azithromycin was also not allowed; Google is still a bit confused about it.
ICU/intubation
In the first months of 2020, it was a hard school: intubation in the Netherlands turned out to be far from the panacea that the Chinese had promised. The chance that you would come out of the ICU alive was smaller than that you would die there. Compare the orange and red lines. (Part of that orange line had also gone home: the blue line.)
The figures from then do not correspond to what is shown now. Maybe the shame was too great. Adjusting these historical figures stood out before. The current situation:
On 20 April 2020, there were 395 former ICU patients who had left the hospital alive in total, Reported early May 2020.
On 20 April 2020, there were 617 ex-ICU patients who had left the hospital alive in total, Reported on December 20, 2022. (see the Current page)
The success rate up to and including April is now 56% higher than then.
| Medical logbook: IC 20-04-2020 | Red | Orange | Blue |
| when (24-4-'20) | 590 | 550 | 395 |
| Right away (20-12-'22) | 537 | 336 | 617 |
All highly interesting, but on both safety and effectiveness, the vaccines score a big fat zero in this analysis. And then we don't give negative figures.
Watch the video with explanation on the substack by Joel Smalley.
Link to poll results of Steve Kirsch:
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/my-latest-all-cause-mortality-survey
Yes, that link is also in Smalley's article but it can't hurt.
In my opinion, the answer can only be found by having an autopsy performed in all cases of an unknown cause of death.
Maybe set up a croudfunding to collect the necessary funds for this...
Yes or at least randomly. But that sample must be determined by an independent party.
Thanks again Anton. I only understand that comparison between the different measurement moments(?) of leaving the ICU alive in (both cases?) April 2020.
Is that date correct or am I missing something?
Bvd again.
Report 2020:
– On 24-4-2020, a total of 395 ICU patients had left the hospital alive
Report 2022:
– On 24-4-2020, a total of 617 ICU patients had left the hospital alive
That is an improvement of 56%. How is that possible?
1. The registration at the time was not valid and has been corrected with retroactive effect. What does that say about the current reports? Will they also turn out to be 50% higher or lower next year?
2. Should the success rate be increased? After all, everything was dominated by the ICUs, people had to be able to go there. Is that justifiable if 2/3 dies? (I also wrote an article about it at the time, see here)
3. Who checks whether these adjustments are correct, whether the reporting figures are correct at all? Every receipt of my silly little bookkeeping is checked, but reports on which million-devouring policy decisions are based, who watches over that? What does internal quality control look like? Just had an interesting comment from an insider, see here
In short, it raised questions for me.
Completely clear now Anton. Thank you. Very valid questions. Top.