“REALLY Disturbing” Post-COVID-Vax Death Statistics

For months, a key piece of data had eluded Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation. “I’ve been asking everyone: Show me the all-cause mortality data proving […]
Published on May 26, 2022

For months, a key piece of data had eluded Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation. “I’ve been asking everyone: Show me the all-cause mortality data proving the vaccines are safe.” On May 5, he wrote on Substack that he finally had the data. But, like pretty much every other government intervention on COVID-19, Kirsh found the younger the vaccinated were, the more likely they were to die than if they had refused the jab.

The source data comes from the UK’s Office for National Statistics, in a series entitled, “Deaths by vaccination status, England”. The data set runs from January 1, 2021 to January 31, 2022. Kirsch said if one were cherry-picking to make the vaccine look bad, they would choose a time period within three weeks of vaccination because adverse reactions would have been more numerous and protection due to administration of the vaccine would not have taken hold. So, for his analysis, Kirsch focused on the death rates six months or more after the second shot—the time the most favourable results for the vaccine would theoretically be evident.

Unfortunately, that’s not what the results said. In fact, for every age group under 80, the vaccinated were more likely to die of one cause or another than the unvaccinated. And for the most part, the younger the vaccinated person, the worse the unfavourable ratio became.

“The data showed that for most age ranges, the vaccine reduced your chance of dying from COVID, but it increased your chances of dying from other causes. The former effect was smaller than the latter effect so the vaccines are nonsensical.”

In the 25-to-29-year-old group, the risk/benefit ratio was 15.0. This meant that those who took the vaccine were 15 times more likely to die six months or more after their second shot than those who did not. But that’s not the worst of it. For the 20-24 age range, it was 18.8; for those 15-19, it was 44.6, and for the 10-14 year-olds it was 1600.8. That’s right—children who took the vaccine increased their chances of dying  by over 1600 times.

Only three COVID-19 vaccines are both approved and available in the UK: Moderna, Oxford/AstraZeneca, and Pfizer/BioNTech, similarty to Canada and that makes the UK findings relevant to us.

Even worse, Kirsch points to analysis by David Fenton that suggests there are missing vaccination deaths in the data; and another by Mathew Crawford that suggests all-cause mortality deaths are being misclassified as COVID deaths and vaccinated COVID deaths are being shifted to the unvaccinated. That means these ratios, which Kirsch calls “REALLY disturbing,” likely understate the lethal risk from the vaccines.

As bad as the findings from England are, Kirsch isn’t entirely surprised by them. In the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, there were 21 deaths in the vaccine group and 15 deaths in the placebo group. However, this 40 percent difference was deemed not statistically significant. However, what Kirsch points out is even here there were only two COVID deaths in that placebo group and one in the vaccine group. This means that for every COVID death prevented by the intervention, there were seven excess deaths by other causes.

Kirsch did a similar risk/benefit computation on the VAERS data in the United States on November 1. He found vaccinated 20-30 year olds were 6.09 times more likely to die, a ratio that gradually decreased until lowering to 1.81 in the 80+ age group. These findings are loosely parallel to those in England, although his calculations were based on a tenuous assumption that the real number of side effects was 41 times what VAERS reported.

This 41x figure is partly derived from a comparison of VAERS and CDC data made by other researchers. It was also used by Toby Rogers’ estimate that vaccinating 5-11 year olds would kill 117 children for every one that was saved by the vaccine.

Other researchers have reached similar conclusions, but given the heavy reliance that medical journals have on the support of pharmaceutical companies, it’s hard to find acknowledgement of this fact. A 2021 study in Toxocology Reports called “Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?” was retracted because purportedly its “findings were unreliable.” Of course, they were also controversial, as its seven authors found “people in the 65+ demographic are five times as likely to die from the inoculation as from COVID-19 under the most favorable assumptions”.

Not much has to be wrong with these experimental vaccines to cause more deaths than they prevent. German and Dutch researchers used data from Israel to estimate 200 to 700 Pfizer vaccinations would be required to prevent a single COVID case and between 9,000 and 100,000 to prevent a COVID death, with 16,000 being a best estimate.

It seems the collateral damage of the COVID vaccinations has far outweighed the benefits. This evidence undoubtedly gives support to Preston Manning’s call for a non-partisan commission to carefully examine the governments’ responses to the COVID pandemic. (https://fcpp.org/2022/05/11/report-of-the-covid-commission/)


Featured News


Undue Censorship Still Skews COVID Treatments

Undue Censorship Still Skews COVID Treatments

The censorship and institutional capture evident in the pandemic should be an ongoing concern for policy-makers, scientists, and the medical field. Someone who encountered this first-hand was clinical trials researcher Sabine Hazan, who testified to the National...

Rodney Hide: My Journey

Rodney Hide: My Journey

It’s been awhile since I have written. I have tried. But I have not had anything useful to say. My concern has always been public policy. What should the government do for the best result? My writing on the government was technical. Here’s what the government is...

Sadly, AFN Remains Bad Venue for Future-Oriented Prosperity Message

Sadly, AFN Remains Bad Venue for Future-Oriented Prosperity Message

Manitoba’s First Nations should reflect on the AFN’s direction as they consider negative reactions to Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre at a recent Assembly of First Nations (AFN) meeting in Montreal. Poilievre, who in the past has boldly said we need to end the...