Stunning news from our polling data: vax has killed 5X more than COVID

  • Reading time:5 mins read
You are currently viewing Stunning news from our polling data: vax has killed 5X more than COVID

Best estimate 2 vax deaths per 1,000 vaccinated. Deaths from vax >> deaths from COVID. Nobody is able to refute Joel’s analysis showing at best the vaccine did nothing (not safe or effective).

by Steve Kirsch

Executive summary

These two surveys that anyone can replicate show that the COVID vaccines should be immediately halted.

Why isn’t anyone showing us their surveys proving we are wrong? Why aren’t any mainstream journalists or “fact checkers” doing their own survey?

Medical practice COVID vax death survey follow up

I recently added some new questions to my original healthcare provider survey.

The latest results are:

  1. Vax kills 2 per 1,000 (consistent with my 500,000 killed in America estimate)
  2. Vax kills 30 per 1,000 of 65 and older (see RecordID 32)
  3. Vax has killed more people than the COVID virus by at least 5:1 (see the most recent entries and also RecordID 12 showing a 40:0 ratio)
  4. 5 to 10% of our healthiest soldiers have been DISABLED by this vaccine (see notes in RecordID 7 in the results)

In other words, it is insane to keep deploying the vaccine; it’s too deadly to be used.

Why won’t anyone even try to replicate my survey? Why aren’t any fact-checkers calling me to validate the entries? Why won’t Pfizer or Moderna prove me wrong?


  1. Ioannidis reported a COVID IFR 0.501% at 60-69 years. So this means if you are over 60, you’re over 6X more likely to die from the vaccine than from COVID since not everyone gets COVID.
  2. Apparently, the total COVID deaths have been greatly exaggerated by including “with COVID.” The 5:1 ratio of vax deaths to COVID deaths suggests that there were around 100,000 true COVID deaths, making it more deadly than the flu.

All-cause death survey follow up

Joel Smalley just posted a follow-up to his analysis of my death survey. Joel’s analysis: at the very best, the vaccine was not safe and effective; i.e., at best it was a complete zero, but more likely worse for both.

After his initial analysis was posted, I called for data scientists to try to critique his analysis and show us the correct result. Just one person posted his analysis but it wasn’t persuasive.

Here’s Joel’s follow-up post: Put up or shut up!

A note on censorship

Censorship and intimidation techniques (threat of being fired) are not the way to achieve medical consensus in any civilized society.

A note on mandates

I thought I had “a right to life” in the US. If you want me to take a vaccine to “save others,” that should always be MY choice, even if the experts think it is perfectly safe.

There is something seriously wrong with a society that makes the risk: benefit tradeoff for you and requires you to risk your life to save others, even if there is solid evidence of that. Here, there was NEVER a clear societal mortality benefit published anywhere that I am aware of, which makes the mandates even worse. And no authority was willing to be challenged on their mandates.

Even the BMJ just published a paper saying college COVID boosters are unethical. Universities ignored it. The scientific argument refutes that BMJ paper: nothing.

Aseem Malhotra follow up

Here is his Patreon link if you would like to support his work. There are three options to choose from.

Regarding his position on other vaccines, he hasn’t had a chance to look at this in depth. He’s a smart guy though.

NOTE: Many scientists don’t want to go full red pill publicly because it hurts their credibility with the blue pill crowd. If a scientist says “I’m for vaccines, but this one is bad” then it’s much harder to ignore/discredit him. I hear this a lot from scientists. I’ll leave it at that.