Account and Defence of Steve Kirsch’s Time Series Argument on the Alarming Covid Vax Death Rate, By Professor X

Steve Kirsch's central claim: https://kirschsubstack.com/p/covid-time-series-graphs-show-clearly is that time series plots of deaths per day following Covid-19 vaccinations provide undeniable evidence that these vaccines are unsafe. His argument, as outlined in his Substack article, can be broken down into several key components:

1.Definition of a Time Series Plot:

Kirsch defines a time series plot for a vaccine as a graph showing the number of deaths per day among vaccinated individuals, starting from the day of vaccination. For a safe vaccine, the plot should be relatively flat, with a slight slope depending on the cohort's average: average age (upward for younger cohorts, flat at around 86 years, downward for older cohorts). Seasonal effects may cause minor fluctuations if vaccinations occur over a short period.

A temporary dip in deaths, known as the "short-term healthy vaccinee effect" (HVE), occurs for about 21 days due to predictable deaths being avoided (e.g., terminally ill individuals not getting vaccinated). A "long-term HVE" permanently lowers vaccinated mortality compared to unvaccinated, but this is not visible in time series plots.

2.Safe vs. Unsafe Vaccines:

A safe vaccine's time series shows a flat death rate after the HVE period, with minor age-related slopes. An unsafe vaccine shows a sustained rise in deaths per day beyond the HVE period, indicating vaccine-related harm.

Kirsch claims flu vaccines appear safe with flat lines but notes a "zero-day kill effect" (y=475 deaths at t=0), which he says is overlooked by the medical community, citing studies like the 2020 Anderson discontinuity study and a 2005 NIH study reported by Sharyl Attkisson.

3.Covid Vaccine Time Series Data:

Czech Republic: Kirsch cites data showing mortality increases of 20%, 58%, and 39% within 200 days for doses 1, 2, and 3, respectively, across all ages, indicating an unsafe vaccine.

Israel: Plots show a 9x difference between highest and lowest death rates, with no HVE, suggesting mandatory vaccinations and significant vaccine harm.

New Zealand: Dose 1 shows complex patterns due to cohort shifts, but doses 2 and 3 show rising mortality (e.g., from 1,500 to 2,500 deaths in 7 weeks for dose 2), even against seasonal downtrends.

U.S. Medicare: Data from 2021 shows rising death rates post-HVE for doses 1–3, with dose 4 cut off due to database limits, all indicating unsafety.

4.Suppression of Data:

Kirsch alleges that no peer-reviewed papers show Covid vaccine time series plots, and the ONS refused to provide such data to Andrew Bridgen and six MPs, implying a deliberate cover-up by mainstream scientists and authorities.

5.Criticism of Mainstream Denial:

Kirsch argues that the medical community ignores clear safety signals, like VAERS spikes and public deaths (e.g., athletes), attributing them to "over-reporting" or normalcy. He calls this "cognitive dissonance" and vows to document the system's failures.

Defence of Kirsch's Argument

From a vaccine-sceptic perspective, Kirsch's time series argument offers a compelling case for questioning Covid-19 vaccine safety, particularly when viewed through a lens critical of establishment narratives. Here's a defense of his core points:

1.Simplicity and Intuitiveness of Time Series Analysis:

Kirsch's use of time series plots is a straightforward method to assess vaccine safety. A flat death rate post-HVE aligns with the expected outcome for a safe vaccine, as it suggests no additional mortality risk beyond normal aging or seasonal factors. A rising death rate, as Kirsch claims to observe, would indeed signal potential harm, making this a clear and accessible metric for non-experts. This simplicity strengthens his argument, as it avoids complex statistical manipulations that could obscure findings.

2.Cross-Country Consistency:

Kirsch's data from the Czech Republic, Israel, New Zealand, and the U.S. Medicare system purportedly show consistent patterns of rising mortality post-vaccination, challenging the narrative of vaccine safety. If verified, this cross-country trend would suggest a systemic issue, not isolated anomalies. For sceptics, this aligns with concerns about rushed vaccine development and inadequate long-term safety testing (e.g., trials unblinded after two months, as Kirsch notes).

3.Suppression of Data as Evidence of Cover-Up:

The alleged refusal by the ONS to provide time series data to Bridgen and others, as Kirsch claims, fuels scepticism about institutional transparency. If true, this could indicate a reluctance to engage with potentially damning evidence, supporting the sceptic view that authorities prioritise narrative control over open scientific inquiry. The absence of time series plots in peer-reviewed literature, as Kirsch asserts, further suggests selective reporting.

4.VAERS and Public Incidents as Corroboration:

Kirsch's reference to VAERS spikes and high-profile deaths (e.g., athletes) resonates with sceptics who see these as underreported signals of vaccine harm. The claim that these are dismissed as "over-reporting" or normal occurrences supports the argument that the medical establishment may be downplaying risks to protect public trust in vaccination programs.

5.Historical Precedent with Flu Vaccines:

Kirsch's mention of flu vaccine studies (e.g., Anderson, 2005 NIH) showing increased elderly mortality despite "flat" time series plots highlights a precedent for overlooked safety issues. This bolsters the sceptic case that the medical community may have a history of ignoring inconvenient data, as seen with the alleged "zero-day kill effect."

From a vaccine-sceptic perspective, Kirsch's time series argument is a bold swing at the establishment's sacred cow, the Covid vaccine narrative. He's not wrong to demand transparency; if the ONS is sitting on time series data, why not release it? The absence of such plots in mainstream journals smells like a dodge, and the VAERS spikes deserve more than a handwave about "over-reporting." Kirsch's plots, if legit, scream trouble, 20% to 58% mortality jumps in 200 days? That's not a flat line. It's the kind of signal that should have Fauci and friends sweating, but instead, they're too busy patting each other's backs for "saving lives." The flu vaccine precedent is chilling, ignoring a "zero-day kill effect" sets a bad vibe for trusting the system. Sure, Kirsch's data isn't peer-reviewed, but when the gatekeepers won't even look at it, what's a vax sceptic to do?