Data in two charts in UPenn Professor Jeffrey Morris’s article show clearly that the vaccines are causing excess deaths. The shot goes in and the death rate starts climbing. Do it again… shot goes in, death rate starts going up, but this time by a smaller amount. That’s dose dependenc! If the vaccine is perfectly safe, nothing should happen to the death rate on each dose: it should be virtually identical.
This means that the VAERS spikes in deaths are not from “overreporting” as the CDC and Professor Morris have erroneously claimed: these are real excess deaths.
These people need to get out of their ivory tower and talk to real doctors who are being inundated with injuries and deaths. The data we observe doesn’t support the claims that the vaccines are safe and it is just “overreporting.”
Why would everyone instantly decide to overreport just the COVID vaccine and not any other vaccine? Nobody ever explains that and provides evidence. I show that the evidence shows that the COVID vaccines are actually 5X underreported!
In this article, I will explain what the data that Morris highlighted shows and also address each of Morris’s attacks on this article.
Check out this article written by UPenn Professor Jeffrey Morris. His specialty is biostatistics, but in his spare time, he writes articles trying to debunk my work and the work of others who attempt to spread the truth.
His article contains a hidden gift to me that he never noticed.
Check out these two charts below and look at the column where the red marking is. See how the numbers go up? … and up? … and up? This column is the daily number of deaths.
Key point:
If vaccination is a non-event, all the numbers in this column should be roughly the same since death is a random event.
Instead, the death numbers per day are pretty much monotonically increasing over time (with one exception in the second chart). For example, on Day 1, we have 1,137 deaths but on day 14, we have 2,660 deaths. That’s a factor of 2.3X growth in just 14 days!!! That’s a HUGE increase. Morris never explain how that can happen in a safe vaccine.
Morris never noticed that the deaths start rising right after the shot because he’s paid not to see any data that goes against the government narrative. It’s clear to all my subscribers, but Jeffrey doesn’t see it at all. The pattern is hard to explain if the vaccines are safe.
What’s worse is the fact that you can replicate the exact same pattern when you repeat the intervention (Dose 2). The second time, the numbers don’t go up as much suggesting that the effect is dose dependent (which is a sure fire sign of causality).
There are really only two possible explanations for this data. Either:
- The vaccine is INSTANTLY reducing your risk of death from all causes by a factor of two, and then the effect wanes over time and returns to “normal” at around 14 days.
OR - The vaccine has a kill pattern that is progressively increasing and peaks sometime after day 14 and then drops back to normal (before going up again later for a second peak at 5 months out as I point out in this article).
To resolve which one is true, have more data from Renz’s original presentation, notably:
So the death rate peaks at 17 days out and then falls back to the baseline all-cause mortality rate. You can see the 2X peak in this chart as well (from 150 baseline to 300).
So unless Professor Morris can provide an alternate explanation for the monotonic increase in deaths that correlates EACH TIME there is a shot with the timing of the shot, we should assume it is the shot causing the increase.
He sent me a rebuttal but he avoided explaining how the deaths go up, peak, and then go back down to normal. A convenient omission.
Professor Morris should be immediately calling for a halt to the vaccine shots if he were an honest scientist. He isn’t doing that because (just between me and you) he’s not an honest guy and refuses to engage in a recorded discussion. That’s just the way it is.
The CDC never released the CMS or SSA data because the CDC would have too hard a time explaining it, so they keep it hidden from public view since their job is to protect the public from any information that would cause vaccine hesitancy.
Conversely, I was keen to publish it because my job is to expose corruption and the truth because that’s what “misinformation superspreaders” are supposed to do.
I asked both of them to either validate or invalidate my article on the “death” safety signal that fired and the CDC never noticed.
Both refused to do it. It’s a simple calculation. I know that because before I asked them, I gave it to two statisticians and they both validated my work without a problem. I asked a third guy, William Briggs, to do the calculation as well. He said, “Why bother? It’s obvious that the criteria was met.”
Check out Briggs’ articles on how stupid masks are, especially his article on the highly acclaimed Bangladesh mask study. Briggs nailed it. I was so impressed I sent him $100 about a year ago when I first read his work.
But Professor Jeffrey Morris on masks? Here’s the misinformation he’s spreading that is not backed by science:
Masks should not be a big deal. Ample data and common sense suggest that masks (especially N95 or surgical masks) “help some” in reducing risk of exposure and transmission when properly worn, especially in crowded, enclosed indoor settings during times of high community infection levels. People should be encouraged to wear masks in such settings.
Yeah right. No way is that true as Briggs and I have pointed out.
Also, I asked Briggs about debates. I told him that Professor Morris told me that real scientists don’t debate, that they just publish papers in the literature to resolve differences or send written documents back and forth.
Briggs said that debate is how science advances and that he personally has never backed down from a debate challenge, but nobody wants to debate him. I wonder why? 😉 Hint: read some of his articles and you quickly understand.
Both of these guys (Morris and Gorski) refuse to validate my work or engage in a debate. Even when I offered “name your price” compensation for their time.
That pretty much tells you everything you need to know about how confident these people are in their beliefs.
