Steve Kirsch
29.5K posts
@stkirsch
Investigative journalist. Authored over 1,800 articles on vaccine safety on my Substack. Former high tech serial entrepreneur. Founder, VSRF.
⚡ TONIGHT on VSRF Live ⚡ John Leake @johnsearsleake joins us to explore a critical question: How did vaccines move from open scientific debate to protected dogma? We’ll cover ACIP, COVID-era policy, and the forces shaping the narrative. Thursday | 7 pm ET Live on Rumble & X -- rumble.com/v778l10-vsrf-l…
I'm excited to share my surprising success in Crypto trade! With an initial investment of £800, I've made a profit of £20,000 thanks to the expert guidance from @justt_mich Her coaching has been valuable. If you're interested in investing with her, send her a DM she's reliable!
Here an MD, @AboutPediatrics, uncritically reposts a propaganda piece masquerading as a piece in stalwart objectivity. The substack article actually Vincent, you should know better: (1) Overstates ICU protection from vanishingly small numbers Substack: “the study found that getting a COVID vaccine kept you out of the ICU! … only those who were unvaccinated ended up in the ICU?” Paper: 0 critical-care admissions in the vaccinated group vs. 3 in the unvaccinated group in the main adolescent first-dose comparison (total fewer than 7 across all analyses; exact number redacted). The paper repeatedly calls COVID outcomes “rare” and “too rare to allow IRRs to be estimated precisely” in children. Tiny counts do not support sweeping causal language. (2) Downplays the study’s own observed cardiac safety signal Substack: “some of those who were vaccinated did develop either pericarditis or myocarditis … they did not find any cases of either pericarditis or myocarditis in those who were unvaccinated.” Paper: Myocarditis and pericarditis were “documented only in the vaccinated groups,” with rates of 27 cases per million after dose 1 and 10 per million after dose 2 (3 myocarditis + 9 pericarditis cases in adolescents, all in vaccinated). The paper foregrounds this as a safety finding; more than half of myocarditis cases led to hospitalization (though mild overall: max 2-day stay, max 1-day critical care, no deaths). (3) Uses the paper to imply infection-caused myocarditis was shown to be higher (when it wasn’t measured) Substack: “isn’t myocarditis supposed to be more common from a natural COVID infection? It is… So why didn’t this study show that? Mostly, because that’s not what this observational study was looking for…” Paper (and Colm Andrews quote): The study “did not specifically look at safety events after infection … infection ascertainment … is not especially reliable in routinely-collected data (many people are infected without there being any record of it).” Positive-test data “underestimates the true incidence of infection.” The paper cannot be cited to prove relative risks here. (4) Turns tiny absolute differences into a “grand victory” narrative Substack: unvaccinated kids were “much more likely to go to the emergency department with COVID … much more likely to be hospitalized with COVID.” Paper (exact adolescent first-dose counts): 27 COVID A&E events in vaccinated vs. 45 in unvaccinated; 33 hospitalizations vs. 57. 20-week risks were extremely low (~1.9–4.2 per 10,000). The conclusion states reductions occurred “although these outcomes were rare.” Suppresses the paper’s own limitations and uncertainty language Substack: “Of course, the study found no such thing!” (dismissing vaccine-danger claims) and presents findings as clean. Paper: “Bias due to unmeasured confounding cannot be ruled out”; healthcare-seeking and testing behavior differences may affect results; infection data are incomplete; some confidence intervals are wide due to rarity. The paper is far more restrained than the Substack’s tone. (6) Imports reassurance from unrelated studies and age groups Substack: cites “seven times more likely with COVID-19 infection” (Penn State), CIDRAP data on 12–39-year-olds and bivalent vaccines, and claims “the safety signal for myocarditis has essentially disappeared.” Paper: These are not findings from this 2021-era BNT162b2 pediatric cohort (ages 5–15). The OpenSAFELY analysis stands on its own mixed results for this specific population and design. (7) Frames the paper as a decisive risk-benefit win instead of the mixed, cautious result it actually is Substack: portrays critics as humiliated and the study as proof vaccines clearly “kept you out of the ICU” while myocarditis is just a minor, known side effect. Paper conclusion: “BNT162b2 vaccination in adolescents reduced COVID-19 A&E attendance and hospitalisation, although these outcomes were rare.” Myocarditis/pericarditis occurred exclusively post-vaccination. The paper itself calls for careful interpretation given the limitations. Bottom line: This was an observational matched-cohort analysis of rare events. It found modest relative reductions in already-rare COVID outcomes among adolescents, zero COVID deaths, tiny critical-care numbers (all in unvaccinated), and a documented (but also rare and mild) myocarditis/pericarditis signal only in the vaccinated groups. The Substack inflates the benefits, minimizes the observed safety signal in this dataset, evades the study’s design limits, and imports external data to create a cleaner narrative than the paper itself supports. Both the benefits and the cardiac events are real but small in absolute terms—exactly why the paper is cautious.
Dr. Kirk Milhoan (@KMilhoanMDPhD) reacts to a federal judge pausing ACIP’s work, and we examine real patient stories and how public health should respond to vaccine injuries with Dr. Craig Spencer (@Craig_A_Spencer) & Dr. Akiko Iwasaki (@VirusesImmunity): podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/aci…
