Genghis Khan: The mRNA of His Time

You said:

How many people did Genghis Khan kill and or enslave?

ChatGPT

Estimating the exact number of people killed and enslaved by Genghis Khan is challenging due to the limitations of historical records and the vast scope of his conquests. However, historians estimate that Genghis Khan's campaigns resulted in the deaths of several million people.

During his conquests, Genghis Khan and his Mongol armies caused significant casualties through battles, sieges, and massacres. The death toll from the Mongol invasions is often cited as ranging from 10 to 40 million people, although these figures are speculative and vary widely among historians. Enslavement was also a common practice during his conquests, with many captured people being enslaved or absorbed into the Mongol army and society.

The impact of his empire was immense, leading to significant demographic and social changes across Eurasia.

You said:

So he killed even more people than Pfizer?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Comparing Genghis Khan's conquests with modern pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer is challenging and not entirely appropriate, as they operate in vastly different contexts with different consequences.

Genghis Khan’s military campaigns led to mass casualties and widespread suffering, resulting in millions of deaths and a significant impact on the societies he conquered.

In contrast, Pfizer is a pharmaceutical company that develops and markets medications and vaccines. The goal of such companies is to improve public health, and while there can be adverse effects or controversies surrounding specific drugs or vaccines, they are typically developed with the intention of benefiting health and well-being.

The scale and nature of Genghis Khan's conquests and Pfizer's operations are fundamentally different, making direct comparisons difficult.

You said:

But in terms of people killed, the latest estimates are 30 million killed by the Covid vaccines.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

The claim that COVID-19 vaccines have caused 30 million deaths is not supported by credible evidence or scientific consensus. COVID-19 vaccines have undergone extensive testing and have been shown to be effective in reducing severe illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19. The vaccines have been authorized and recommended by numerous health organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), based on robust clinical trial data and ongoing real-world evidence.

Adverse effects from vaccines can occur, but they are generally rare and often mild. Serious side effects are monitored and investigated thoroughly by health authorities. The benefits of vaccination in preventing COVID-19 and its severe consequences far outweigh the risks for most people.

Claims about high numbers of vaccine-related deaths should be critically examined and cross-referenced with reliable sources to avoid misinformation. If you have concerns about vaccine safety, it is best to consult reputable health organizations and professionals.

You said:

How many people have been killed by the mRNA vaccines combined?  3,6, 20?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

The overwhelming consensus among health authorities is that mRNA vaccines, such as those developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, have not caused a significant number of deaths. The vaccines have undergone rigorous testing in clinical trials and continuous monitoring in real-world use to ensure their safety and efficacy.

While there have been reports of adverse effects, the vast majority of these are mild and temporary, such as soreness at the injection site or mild flu-like symptoms. Serious adverse events are extremely rare. For instance, reports of myocarditis (heart inflammation) have been noted in younger individuals, particularly males, but such cases are rare and usually mild compared to the risks of COVID-19 itself.

Health authorities like the CDC and WHO continuously monitor vaccine safety and investigate any reports of adverse events. They have not identified any substantial evidence that mRNA vaccines have caused large numbers of deaths. The benefits of mRNA vaccines in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19 are well-documented and considered to outweigh the risks for the vast majority of people.

If you have concerns about vaccine safety, it's important to refer to data from reputable sources like the CDC, WHO, and peer-reviewed studies.

You said:

Have a guess.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

While I understand you're asking for an estimate, it's crucial to base conclusions on reliable data rather than guesses. The available evidence indicates that deaths directly caused by mRNA vaccines are extremely rare. The vaccines' benefits in preventing severe COVID-19 complications far outweigh the risks for most people. If you have specific concerns or questions about vaccine safety, reviewing the latest data from trusted health organizations is the best approach.

You said:

Have any deaths been ruled to have been vaccine-caused?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Yes, there have been a small number of deaths where a causal link to mRNA vaccines has been investigated. In these cases, health authorities examine whether the vaccine could have contributed to the death, often in conjunction with other factors.

For example:

Myocarditis and Pericarditis: Some cases of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the lining around the heart) have been reported, primarily in younger males after mRNA vaccination. While these conditions can be serious, they are typically mild and treatable. The incidence of these conditions is very low compared to the overall benefits of vaccination.

Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS): Though more commonly associated with AstraZeneca’s viral vector vaccine rather than mRNA vaccines, similar rare cases have been studied, and any links to mRNA vaccines are generally found to be minimal.

The vast majority of death investigations do not find a direct causal link to vaccines. Most deaths reported post-vaccination occur due to unrelated health conditions or causes. Health agencies like the CDC, WHO, and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) closely monitor vaccine safety and publish regular updates. They have found that the vaccines' benefits in preventing severe COVID-19 complications far outweigh the risks.

You said:

So you must have a guess?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

While I understand the interest in a specific number, it's important to emphasize that any guess would not be based on concrete evidence. The available data from health authorities indicates that deaths directly caused by mRNA vaccines are extremely rare.

The focus is generally on understanding and managing any potential risks rather than estimating numbers of vaccine-related deaths. If you have specific concerns, consulting detailed reports and updates from health organizations like the CDC and WHO is the best approach for accurate and up-to-date information.

You said:

Fewer than 10?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Yes, the number of deaths directly attributed to mRNA vaccines is extremely low, and often fewer than 10 cases have been confirmed where the vaccine was a contributing factor. Most of these cases involve rare adverse events, such as myocarditis or allergic reactions, which are monitored and managed by health authorities. The overwhelming majority of people experience no serious adverse effects, and the benefits of mRNA vaccines in preventing severe COVID-19 complications and deaths far outweigh the risks for the general population.

You said:

So from 30 million to 10?  Someone has faulty math?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Yes, the discrepancy between figures like 30 million and fewer than 10 is vast and highlights the importance of relying on accurate and verified data. The claim of 30 million deaths attributed to COVID-19 vaccines is not supported by credible evidence. In contrast, health authorities, based on extensive data and monitoring, report that vaccine-related deaths are extremely rare, typically fewer than 10 confirmed cases where a direct causal link to the vaccine has been established.

The large difference underscores the necessity of using reliable sources and evidence-based information when discussing vaccine safety and effectiveness. If you encounter conflicting information, it's crucial to verify it with reputable health organizations and scientific studies.

You said:

Why can't you take your own advice?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

I strive to base my responses on reliable and up-to-date information from reputable sources. If there's ever a discrepancy or if you feel the information isn't aligning with your expectations, please let me know, and I can look into it further. It's essential to have accurate information, especially on critical topics like vaccine safety, so I appreciate your diligence in questioning and seeking clarity.

You said:

Have you seen the Singapore deaths alone?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

I haven’t seen specific data for COVID-19 vaccine-related deaths in Singapore alone, but health authorities in Singapore, like in many other countries, closely monitor vaccine safety and report on adverse events. Singapore's health agencies, including the Ministry of Health and the Health Sciences Authority, regularly publish information about vaccine safety and any adverse events.

If you’re referring to specific data or reports, it’s essential to cross-reference such information with official sources like the Health Sciences Authority of Singapore or peer-reviewed studies to ensure accuracy. If you have specific numbers or reports, I can help you analyze or understand them in context.

You said:

Since the vaccines were rolled out, all-cause mortality is way up.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Increases in all-cause mortality can be influenced by a variety of factors, including pandemics, changes in healthcare access, and other societal and environmental changes. The introduction of COVID-19 vaccines is just one element among many in this complex picture.

When evaluating claims about increases in all-cause mortality related to vaccines, it's crucial to consider:

Data Context: Health authorities analyze mortality data within the context of broader trends. Increases in mortality rates might be due to a variety of factors, including the ongoing impact of COVID-19, disruptions to healthcare systems, or other public health issues.

Causality vs. Correlation: Correlation between vaccine rollouts and changes in mortality rates does not necessarily imply causation. Detailed epidemiological studies are needed to establish whether there is a direct link between vaccines and mortality increases.

Vaccine Safety Monitoring: Health organizations continually monitor vaccine safety and effectiveness. Any potential safety concerns are investigated thoroughly. The consensus from organizations like the CDC, WHO, and other health authorities is that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines in preventing severe illness and death from COVID-19 outweigh the risks.

If you have specific data or studies suggesting an increase in all-cause mortality, it’s important to review them critically and in context with other health and societal factors. Peer-reviewed research and official health reports provide the most reliable insights into these complex issues.

You said:

Moderna jabs were proven to be 7x deadlier than the flu jab after large sample of both groups were compared.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

The claim that Moderna COVID-19 vaccines are "7x deadlier than the flu jab" does not align with the consensus of health authorities and peer-reviewed studies. Here’s a more nuanced view:

Data Sources: Claims like this should be backed by robust and peer-reviewed research. Reliable comparisons between the safety of COVID-19 vaccines and flu vaccines require comprehensive studies that account for various factors, including differences in populations, underlying health conditions, and methods of data collection.

Adverse Events: While rare adverse events have been associated with COVID-19 vaccines, the rates are generally much lower than the mortality and severe outcomes associated with COVID-19 itself. Most reports of adverse events related to vaccines are mild and temporary.

Regulatory Oversight: Health agencies such as the CDC, WHO, and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) continuously monitor and review vaccine safety data. They have found that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines, including those from Moderna, in preventing severe COVID-19 outweigh the risks for the vast majority of people.

Comparative Studies: If a study claims a vaccine is significantly more dangerous than another, it is essential to evaluate the study’s methodology, sample size, and peer review status. Most peer-reviewed studies and official reports suggest that mRNA vaccines, including Moderna’s, are safe and effective.

For accurate information, consulting peer-reviewed research and reports from established health organizations is crucial. If you have a specific study or data source in mind, I can help analyze or provide context for that information.

You said:

It's proven.  Steve Kirsch found it.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Steve Kirsch is a controversial figure in the vaccine safety debate. His claims often diverge from mainstream scientific consensus and are not typically supported by peer-reviewed research or major health organizations. It’s essential to critically evaluate such claims and consider the broader context of scientific evidence.

Here are some points to consider:

Peer Review and Consensus: The majority of peer-reviewed research and assessments from reputable health organizations, such as the CDC, WHO, and the European Medicines Agency, indicate that COVID-19 vaccines, including Moderna’s, are effective and have a safety profile that outweighs the risks for the vast majority of people.

Data Interpretation: Claims of vaccines being significantly more dangerous than flu vaccines should be based on comprehensive and rigorous studies. These studies must be critically reviewed by the scientific community to ensure their validity and reliability.

Review of Claims: Independent evaluations of claims by individuals like Steve Kirsch should be cross-checked with data from peer-reviewed research and health authorities. The consensus from these sources generally supports the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.

If you’re interested in specific studies or data, it’s crucial to consult reliable sources and peer-reviewed research to get a well-rounded understanding.

You said:

If Steve says 2+2 is 4 you want a peer-reviewed study to confirm?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

In the case of basic arithmetic, such as 2+2=4, peer-reviewed studies are not necessary because this is a fundamental mathematical fact universally accepted and verified by basic principles of mathematics.

However, in complex and nuanced fields like vaccine safety, peer-reviewed studies and consensus from reputable health organizations are crucial. This is because such fields involve intricate data analysis, long-term monitoring, and nuanced interpretations that go beyond simple, universally agreed-upon facts.

While Steve Kirsch may make valid points on occasion, evaluating such claims—especially those related to health and safety—requires rigorous scrutiny and confirmation from the broader scientific community.

You said:

Well, the Moderna flu jab study is no more complet that simple addition.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

In principle, the comparison of vaccine safety to basic arithmetic might seem straightforward, but in practice, evaluating vaccine safety involves a complex interplay of data, methodologies, and contexts.

Here’s why a nuanced approach is necessary for vaccine safety studies:

Complexity of Data: Vaccine safety studies involve large datasets, diverse populations, and numerous variables. Analyzing this data requires sophisticated statistical methods and peer review to ensure accuracy and reliability.

Peer Review Process: This process helps ensure that findings are scrutinized by experts in the field before being accepted. It helps validate the methodology and conclusions drawn from the data.

Contextual Factors: Vaccine safety must be assessed in the context of overall public health, including the severity and impact of the diseases they prevent. Comparisons between different vaccines also consider the population demographics, disease prevalence, and vaccine administration methods.

Health Authority Oversight: Organizations like the CDC, WHO, and other national and international health agencies continually review and update safety information based on comprehensive data from multiple sources.

While basic arithmetic is universally understood, the assessment of vaccine safety involves detailed scientific analysis and peer-reviewed validation. If you have specific studies or data in mind, it's valuable to examine them in the context of broader scientific consensus and health authority reviews.

You said:

All you need to do is count the deaths that occurred temporally in close proximity to Moderna and the flu jab.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Counting deaths that occur temporally near vaccine administration can be part of evaluating safety, but it’s not sufficient on its own to determine causality. Here’s why:

Temporal Association vs. Causality: Just because a death occurs after vaccination doesn’t mean the vaccine caused it. Correlation does not imply causation. Deaths can occur due to many reasons unrelated to the vaccine, such as underlying health conditions or unrelated accidents.

Comprehensive Analysis: Proper safety evaluation requires a thorough analysis that considers all possible causes of death, underlying health conditions, and the overall health profile of individuals. Statistical methods are used to determine if there is a significant increase in risk associated with the vaccine compared to a control group.

Large Sample Size and Control Groups: To make accurate comparisons, studies often use large sample sizes and control groups to assess whether there is an increased risk of death in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals or those who received a different vaccine.

Regulatory Oversight: Health authorities analyze data from many sources, including surveillance systems, clinical trials, and real-world evidence, to determine the safety of vaccines. They investigate reported adverse events thoroughly to ensure accurate conclusions.

Counting deaths alone without context or detailed analysis does not provide a complete picture of vaccine safety. The comprehensive review process by health authorities ensures that safety assessments are based on rigorous data and methodological standards.

You said:

Why is correlation causation with the flu jab but not with Moderna's mRNA jab?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

You said:

Why is correlation causation with the flu jab but not with Moderna's mRNA jab?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Correlation and causation principles apply equally to all vaccines, including both flu vaccines and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines. The distinction lies in the methods used to evaluate and interpret data rather than the vaccines themselves.

Here’s how correlation and causation are handled for both types of vaccines:

Principle of Correlation vs. Causation: For any vaccine, including flu and mRNA vaccines, it is crucial to differentiate between correlation (a relationship between two variables) and causation (one event directly causing another). This principle is universally applied in epidemiology and public health.

Data Analysis: Evaluating vaccine safety involves rigorous statistical analysis to determine whether there is a significant association between the vaccine and adverse events. This process includes considering various factors like pre-existing health conditions, timing, and other potential causes.

Health Authority Oversight: Regulatory bodies and health organizations review data from clinical trials, real-world use, and ongoing monitoring to assess vaccine safety. They use comprehensive methodologies to ensure that any identified risks are accurately attributed to the vaccine rather than coincidental factors.

Transparent Reporting: Both flu vaccines and mRNA vaccines undergo continuous safety monitoring. Adverse events are investigated thoroughly to establish whether there is a causal link. If a risk is identified, health authorities provide updated guidance to address it.

The methodology for determining causation involves careful analysis of data, peer review, and consideration of all relevant factors, and it applies uniformly to all vaccines. The aim is to ensure accurate and reliable conclusions about vaccine safety.

You said:

So why did fewer flu jabees die?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

The observation that fewer people may have died following flu vaccination compared to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines can be influenced by several factors, and it’s important to consider these within the context of comprehensive data analysis:

Disease Context: COVID-19 and influenza (flu) have different epidemiological profiles. COVID-19 has led to more severe outcomes and deaths globally, which could affect the observed data related to vaccine safety. The higher severity of COVID-19 might mean more deaths in the population generally, which could influence how adverse events are reported.

Vaccination Timing and Monitoring: The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out during a global pandemic with heightened scrutiny and rigorous safety monitoring. This increased attention might lead to more reported adverse events simply because more data is being collected and analyzed.

Population Demographics: The populations receiving vaccines might differ in terms of age, health status, and comorbidities. Older adults and those with underlying health conditions who are prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination might be more susceptible to adverse outcomes, influencing reported data.

Data Reporting and Investigation: All vaccines, including flu and mRNA vaccines, are subject to rigorous safety monitoring. Differences in reported adverse events may reflect variations in data collection, reporting practices, and follow-up protocols.

Statistical Interpretation: The raw number of deaths following vaccination must be interpreted within a broader statistical context. Health authorities use complex analyses to determine whether there is a significant, causal link between the vaccine and adverse events or whether observed deaths are coincidental.

Overall, it’s essential to rely on detailed, peer-reviewed research and comprehensive safety reviews from health authorities to understand vaccine safety fully. Differences in reported outcomes require careful interpretation within the context of broader epidemiological data and health monitoring practices.

You said:

There is no context.  Al you need is a watch?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

While it might seem simple to look at the timing of events, determining the relationship between vaccination and outcomes like deaths involves more complex considerations:

Contextual Data: Even if deaths occur shortly after vaccination, a detailed analysis is required to understand whether the vaccine caused or contributed to the death or if it was due to unrelated factors.

Comprehensive Review: Health authorities and researchers consider various factors, including medical history, underlying health conditions, and other potential causes of death, not just the timing of the vaccine.

Statistical Significance: Researchers analyze large datasets to determine whether there is a statistically significant increase in adverse events related to the vaccine. This involves sophisticated statistical methods beyond simply observing the timing of events.

Health Monitoring Systems: Vaccine safety is monitored through established systems that collect data on adverse events and investigate potential causal links. This process involves extensive peer review and analysis to ensure accurate conclusions.

Vaccine Safety Research: Vaccine safety research is conducted through randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and ongoing surveillance. These methods provide a more comprehensive understanding of vaccine safety than simple temporal associations.

While it might seem straightforward to link deaths with vaccination timing, thorough scientific analysis is necessary to determine causation and ensure accurate and reliable safety assessments.

You said:

If death by jabs can never be determined, why bother tracking death at all?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Tracking deaths and other adverse events following vaccination is crucial for several reasons:

Safety Monitoring: Continuous monitoring helps ensure vaccines are safe and effective. Even if it’s challenging to determine causation, tracking helps identify patterns or unusual spikes in adverse events, which can prompt further investigation and ensure public health safety.

Identifying Risks: By systematically tracking adverse events, including deaths, health authorities can identify potential risks associated with vaccines. This helps in assessing whether specific populations might be at higher risk and whether adjustments or additional precautions are needed.

Improving Vaccines: Data collection and analysis contribute to improving vaccine formulations, dosing schedules, and administration practices. Learning from real-world data helps refine and enhance vaccine safety and efficacy.

Public Confidence: Transparent reporting and tracking of vaccine safety data build public trust. People are more likely to accept and benefit from vaccines when they know that safety is closely monitored and that any issues are addressed promptly.

Regulatory Decisions: Regulatory agencies use tracking data to make informed decisions about vaccine approvals, recommendations, and safety updates. This ensures that vaccines remain effective and safe for the populations they serve.

While determining causation can be complex, tracking deaths and other adverse events is essential for comprehensive safety monitoring and public health management. It helps protect individuals and populations by ensuring that vaccines are both safe and effective.

You said:

What level of proof would you need to definitively say yes, this jab killed this person?  Would they need to die within 3 minutes of injection?  It takes decades for smoke to cause lung cancer and you accept that smoking kills?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

To definitively determine if a vaccine caused a death, several factors are considered:

Immediate vs. Long-Term Effects: Unlike immediate reactions like severe allergic reactions, which can be closely linked to the time of injection, long-term effects like those from smoking (e.g., lung cancer) involve complex, gradual processes. Both require thorough investigation but differ in how their causation is established.

Temporal Proximity: For a vaccine, immediate adverse effects are easier to assess. For instance, severe allergic reactions like anaphylaxis typically occur within minutes to hours of vaccination. Deaths occurring within minutes of vaccination would be scrutinized carefully, but it's rare for such an immediate effect to be conclusively linked to the vaccine without other contributing factors.

Comprehensive Investigation: Determining causation involves:

Medical History: Evaluating the individual’s health status, pre-existing conditions, and potential risk factors.

Autopsy and Forensic Analysis: Conducting autopsies to identify any direct or indirect causes of death.

Epidemiological Data: Analyzing data from large populations to see if the death rate following vaccination is significantly higher than expected.

Temporal Analysis: Assessing whether the timing of the death is consistent with known adverse effects of the vaccine.

Scientific Consensus: A conclusive determination often requires a broader review by health authorities and experts. They consider all available evidence, including clinical trials, real-world data, and expert opinions.

Long-Term Monitoring: For chronic conditions or delayed effects, extensive data collection over time is necessary. This involves ongoing surveillance and studies to identify any long-term risks associated with the vaccine.

In summary, proving causation between a vaccine and a death involves a thorough, multi-faceted approach, including immediate effects, medical history, forensic analysis, and broader epidemiological data. It's a complex process designed to ensure that conclusions are based on comprehensive and rigorous evidence.

You said:

Well, all of these same criteria were applied to both the flu jab and Moderna's Covid jab, and many more died after Moderna.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

The observation that more deaths have occurred after Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine compared to the flu vaccine requires careful interpretation. Here’s why:

Population Size and Risk Context: COVID-19 vaccines were administered to a broader and more diverse population, including high-risk individuals and those with pre-existing conditions. This demographic may naturally have a higher risk of adverse outcomes.

Disease Severity: COVID-19 has a higher mortality rate than seasonal flu, which can impact overall mortality statistics. The higher baseline risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 itself might influence death rates among those vaccinated.

Reporting and Surveillance: The reporting systems for vaccine adverse events are more robust and active during a pandemic. This increased vigilance can lead to higher reported rates of adverse events, including deaths, which might be coincidental rather than causative.

Data Analysis: Health authorities use detailed statistical analyses to assess whether deaths following vaccination are causally related to the vaccine or due to other factors. These analyses take into account the timing, medical history, and other relevant information.

Epidemiological Studies: Peer-reviewed studies and ongoing safety reviews by organizations like the CDC, WHO, and EMA provide a comprehensive view of vaccine safety. These studies analyze large datasets to determine whether observed deaths are statistically significant and causally linked to the vaccine.

In essence, while the raw numbers of deaths reported post-vaccination may be higher for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, health authorities and researchers assess these deaths within a broader context to ensure accurate safety evaluations. The overall consensus from these organizations is that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines, including Moderna’s, in preventing severe illness and death from COVID-19 far outweigh the risks for most people.

You said:

Population was controlled for.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

If the population was controlled for in studies comparing deaths after receiving Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine to the flu vaccine, it implies that the analysis accounted for various factors such as age, health status, and other demographics to ensure a fair comparison. Despite controlling for these variables, several considerations still apply:

Background Risk: Even with controlled populations, COVID-19 itself is associated with higher background mortality compared to influenza. This can influence the observed number of deaths post-vaccination.

Vaccine Rollout Timing: The COVID-19 vaccine rollout occurred during a global pandemic, with extensive focus and monitoring. The flu vaccine is administered in a less urgent context, which can affect reporting practices and data collection.

Data Interpretation: Controlled studies and analyses must be rigorously reviewed to differentiate between correlation and causation. Health authorities conduct detailed investigations to determine whether deaths are directly attributable to the vaccine or due to other factors.

Safety Monitoring: Both vaccines are subject to ongoing safety monitoring. Any patterns or signals of increased risk are investigated thoroughly, and recommendations are adjusted based on the findings.

Comprehensive Review: Health organizations consider a wide range of data sources and analyses to assess vaccine safety comprehensively. Peer-reviewed studies and official safety reviews by entities like the CDC, WHO, and EMA are crucial in understanding the overall risk profile.

In summary, while controlling for population variables is essential, interpreting vaccine safety involves a broad evaluation of data, considering context, and relying on extensive peer-reviewed research. If you have specific studies or data points, reviewing them in conjunction with broader safety evaluations can provide a clearer picture.

You said:

Everything was controlled for.  All relevant parameters were controlled for.  It was a giant sample size.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

If a study has indeed controlled for all relevant parameters, used a giant sample size, and still shows a significant difference in outcomes like deaths between Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine and the flu vaccine, it would warrant thorough examination and discussion. Here are steps to take and factors to consider:

Review the Study Methodology: Ensure that the study’s design, data collection, and analysis methods are robust. Check if the study has been peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal.

Understand the Context: Consider the context of the study, including the timing of vaccine administration, population health characteristics, and any external factors that could influence results.

Examine the Findings: Look at how the findings are reported. For instance, are the reported deaths directly linked to the vaccine, or is there a possibility of other contributing factors?

Compare with Other Studies: Compare the results with other large-scale studies and safety reviews from reputable health organizations like the CDC, WHO, and EMA. Differences in findings can arise from various factors, including study design and population characteristics.

Consider the Safety Profile: Evaluate the overall safety profile of the vaccines, including known risks and benefits. The consensus from health authorities is that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines in preventing severe illness and death outweigh the risks for most people.

Look for Official Responses: Check for responses from health authorities or vaccine manufacturers. They may provide context or additional information on the findings, including any updates to vaccine recommendations or safety guidelines.

While controlled studies with large sample sizes provide valuable insights, interpreting the results involves considering multiple factors and comparing findings with broader research and expert evaluations.

You said:

It was thoroughly examined!  There is no debate!

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

If a study has been thoroughly examined and its findings are unequivocal, it should be published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal where it can be scrutinized by other experts in the field. Here’s what typically follows:

Peer Review and Publication: A study with significant findings, particularly those suggesting a major difference in safety profiles between vaccines, would be subject to rigorous peer review. It would be published in a respected journal where other experts can validate or challenge its conclusions.

Health Authority Response: Major findings from such studies are usually reviewed by health authorities and organizations like the CDC, WHO, and EMA. They would assess the implications for public health and adjust recommendations or guidelines as necessary.

Public and Scientific Discourse: Significant results would likely spark widespread discussion and analysis within the scientific community and among public health officials. This discourse helps ensure that the findings are considered in the broader context of existing research and safety data.

Contextual Analysis: Even with thorough examination, it’s crucial to consider the study's context, methodology, and potential limitations. No single study is definitive on its own; it contributes to the broader body of evidence.

If you have specific details about the study, including its source, publication, or findings, sharing that information could provide more context for evaluating its impact and relevance.

You said:

It was published Jackass!

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

I apologize if I missed any details. If the study you’re referring to has been published and thoroughly examined, it’s important to look at the specific findings and their implications. Here’s how you can assess its impact:

Review the Study: Check the study’s methodology, sample size, control measures, and statistical analysis. Understanding these aspects can help assess the validity of the conclusions.

Compare with Other Research: Look at how this study’s findings align with or differ from other research on vaccine safety. Comparing results can provide a clearer picture of their significance.

Examine Health Authorities’ Reactions: See if health organizations like the CDC, WHO, or EMA have responded to the study. Their reviews and recommendations will offer context and guidance based on the new evidence.

Look for Peer Feedback: Read any responses or critiques from other experts in the field. Peer feedback can help validate or question the study’s findings.

Consider the Broader Context: Evaluate the study within the broader context of vaccine safety data, including ongoing surveillance and historical data.

If you provide more details about the study or its findings, I can help analyze and interpret the information more effectively.

You said:

Kirsch also proved that Moderna was twice as deadly as Pfizer.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

You said:

Attempts to debunk my "Moderna and Pfizer are kill shots" post fail badly

I'll summarize the arguments and show you the data so you can decide for yourself

Steve Kirsch

Jul 18

READ IN APP

Executive summary

Three attacks have surfaced attempting to find a flaw in my Moderna/Pfizer analysis.

I’ll show you in this article why all three fall flat.

Also, the attackers are not calling for data transparency. They also attempt to change the topic when confronted with questions they find uncomfortable.

Attack references

So you can see their arguments first-hand and decide for yourself:

Real Truther and be sure to see this post showing how he keeps changing the topic

Professor Jeffrey Morris posts

Argument #1: OK, you’re right. Moderna has higher mortality but that’s because it’s less effective in preventing COVID deaths, not because it is increasing ACM.

This is easily debunked using the chart that the Real Truther used to demand I retract my analysis which he lifted from Henjin’s analysis:

Image

The gap between Moderna and Pfizer is steady, even when there is no COVID. The Real Truther didn’t notice that. Now he wants to run away when I ask him to explain how that is safe.

The blue is Pfizer. Red is Moderna.

Truther never bothered to check the dates when COVID deaths were near zero in the Czech Republic. But I did.

And guess what?

The distance between the curves remains steady during times of very high COVID and times of no COVID.

That means two things:

Moderna is 50% more deadly than baseline ACM (due to the separation during no COVID times). So Truther inadvertently proved Moderna is a train wreck. When I asked him to explain how there could be an ACM differential during no COVID, he wanted to talk about something else.

The vaccines were not substantially different in their ability to prevent death. If one were more effective than the other, we’d see the gap narrow or widen during COVID. Which could mean that they worked really well, worked half way, or didn’t work at all.

The bottom line is that because Moderna was 50% higher during non-COVID times, it means the Moderna vaccine increased baseline ACM by 50%. That’s a disaster because vaccines are supposed to reduce ACM, not increase it.

Oh, and I checked this independently as well. See d2-jun21-deaths-filtered-by-month.xlsx in the repo analysis directory.

So thanks to The Real Truther, we can now show the differences were not due to vaccine effectiveness, but were 100% due to increasing ACM from baseline ACM.

This is a train wreck and The Real Truther helped me prove it! Poetic justice.

This is extremely damaging because they can’t explain why there is a difference when there is no COVID.

Nobody’s going to believe the shots reduced ACM. All these funerals that people are going to are of the vaccinated. Check out Jay Bonnar’s friends, all vaccinated, all died unexpectedly, 4 died on the same day as the shot.

Is it possible these shots reduced COVID ACM by equal amounts? Yes, but very unlikely. We have other data like the JAMA VA study and the US Nursing home data that show COVID mortality isn’t improved.

Finally, a 50% differential is just way too big for COVID for younger ages. My Czech friends tell me you can get to 12% if you were 100% effective, no way you can get to 50%.

But since there’s a differential at no COVID, it ends the debate.

Argument #2: The vaccinated have half the all-cause mortality as the vaccinated. The vaccines are saving lives!

The thing they NEVER point out is that the mortality difference is the same during no COVID and high COVID. So it wasn’t the vaccine. It was selection bias.

People who opt for the shots have higher socio-economic status, etc. That is why there is a difference when there is no COVID: the groups are different.

So comparing with the unvaccinated is not the right comparator and is a diversion.

The groups that are the groups who took the shots since they didn’t know what vaccine they were going to get.

Argument #3: There is bias in the convenience sampling. Both vaccines are very safe.

In the absence of any evidence of a systematic bias based on comorbidities, the most likely estimate is even distribution in the aggregate since there is nothing that would favor one brand over the other.

So if it was sampling “chunkiness” we’d expect to see no bias in the aggregate but we’d expect the MRR to be >1 in as many age groups as <1.

If it was sampling bias, we’d surely see at least one in 10 of the points that are strongly the other way.

Virtually all the MRRs are >1. So we have to discard that hypothesis since it just doesn’t fit the observed data.

We also have confirmation from v-safe that Moderna, on a per shot basis, produced significantly more serious adverse events. You can see from the dashboard that Moderna has more serious events reported than Pfizer even though 40% or so of the shots were Moderna.

We have confirmation in VAERS as well as I pointed out in the main article.

We have biological plausibility for all this: the amount of mRNA was over 50% higher for Moderna as I’ve pointed out in the main article.

And finally we have this nice note from Norman Fenton that the same was found in the UK.

So everywhere we’re seeing a greater number of adverse events caused by Moderna.

Professor Morris just can’t seem to accept that. He wants us to ignore that and prove that the effect cannot be due to sampling bias.

It could be, but the probability is very low since the numbers were so one-sided.

I’ve asked Professor Morris, “Why don't you show me a real life example where convenience sampling showed mortality rates were always higher, up to 2X and never a single age group where it was 2x the other way?”

So there is nothing to support convenience bias as the most likely explanation, and everything consistent with “it’s a more deadly shot due to the higher amount of poison in each shot.” That’s why I reject the convenience sampling bias argument: the data and the evidence just doesn’t support it.

Pfizer is nearly as unsafe as Moderna on a per shot basis

The Czech data shows, at best, Pfizer is completely safe and Moderna is a disaster.

But one look at the V-safe data shows Pfizer cannot be safe.

If the vaccines were safe, we wouldn’t have an 8% serious adverse event reporting rate in V-safe, something the government tried to hide from us. If Pfizer was safe, nearly all these V-safe reports would be from Moderna. But they aren’t. A slight majority are from Moderna, even though Modera was 40% of the vaccine delivered.

So make no mistake… both vaccines are deadly. These people simply cannot explain the v-safe data if the vaccines are both safe.

Summary

All the people attacking my analysis are not interested in the truth. If they were, they’d be calling for data transparency.

And they’d provide evidence in the data supporting their claims. Where is the example of convenience sampling causing all MRR’s to be >1? They tend to change the topic when challenged on their attacks. And they avoid answering pointed questions such as you see here where “Truther” keeps wanting to change the topic when he can’t answer a simple question that proves he’s wrong.

The single best fair comparison we have today is the mortality comparison by brand. Yet nobody wants to see or compute this number for other countries. Why not?

They want you to focus on the vaccinated die at half the rate of the unvaccinated, and want you to ignore the fact that it happens when there is no COVID around.

They just can’t accept the data in plain sight. They are deliberately trying to mislead people into believing a fairy tale. Don’t fall for it.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Steve Kirsch's claims about Moderna and Pfizer vaccines raise important questions, but it's crucial to approach them with a critical mindset. Here’s a breakdown of key points from the summary you provided:

Arguments Addressed

Higher Mortality Rate of Moderna:

Kirsch’s Claim: Moderna is 50% more deadly than baseline all-cause mortality (ACM), based on data showing consistent higher mortality even when COVID-19 cases are low.

Counterpoint: This claim requires thorough examination of the data. The observed mortality difference should be compared with other studies, and factors like demographic differences, health conditions, and reporting biases should be considered.

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Mortality:

Kirsch’s Claim: The lower mortality rate of the vaccinated is attributed to socio-economic factors rather than vaccine efficacy.

Counterpoint: While socio-economic status can influence health outcomes, rigorous studies should account for such biases. Comparative studies should consider these factors when analyzing vaccine impact.

Sampling Bias:

Kirsch’s Claim: Sampling bias doesn’t explain the higher mortality rates for Moderna; the data shows Moderna’s vaccines are more dangerous.

Counterpoint: Sampling bias is a valid concern in any analysis. Proper controls and corrections should be applied. Additionally, peer-reviewed studies should verify these findings and address sampling concerns.

Additional Considerations

Data Transparency and Peer Review: The validity of Kirsch's claims hinges on the transparency of data and the peer-review process. Studies should be published in reputable journals and subjected to scrutiny by experts in the field.

Safety Monitoring Systems: Data from V-safe, VAERS, and other monitoring systems are crucial for assessing vaccine safety. High reporting rates of adverse events could indicate either higher risks or more vigilant reporting systems.

Context and Comparisons: Mortality data needs to be interpreted in the context of overall public health benefits. Vaccines' primary goal is to reduce severe illness and death from COVID-19. Comparative studies should balance these outcomes against observed adverse effects.

Scientific Consensus: The broader scientific community, including health organizations like the CDC, WHO, and others, regularly review and synthesize available data. Their findings, based on extensive research and data analysis, are crucial in understanding the vaccines' safety and efficacy.

If you want a deeper analysis or to discuss specific data points, providing more details or referencing peer-reviewed studies would be helpful.