COVID vaccines were a disaster for the elderly;

US Nursing home data shows clearly that the vaccines increased the risk of dying from COVID 

By Steven Kirsh   &.9.23

Figure 1. The US Nursing Home Data shows that the vaccines were a huge failure. The orange line represents the risk of dying from COVID. It’s an odds ratio relative to the odds on 12/6/20 which is the point right before the vaccines rolled out. The choice of the reference simply affects where OR=1 (the right hand legend). Any other point would show the exact same curve. As you can see, the odds ratio of dying (died from COVID:survived COVID infection) goes up from the trendline after the primary shots and after the booster shots. The only thing that did reduce death from COVID is when Omicron became the primary strain in late December 2021. The vaccines were a huge mistake because they significantly depressed people’s immune system. The blue bars are COVID cases just to show the risk of death is not related to cases going up or down. This was added to the chart to debunk Professor Morris’s claims that the IFR goes up when cases go down. Not true. As you can clearly see from this chart, the IFR spiked starting around 2/14/21, after cases had stabilized.

Executive summary

The US Nursing Home data is the “gold-standard“ record level data for what happened in nursing homes after the COVID vaccine rolled out.

The signal from this data is clear and unambiguous: both the primary series and booster COVID vaccines increased the risk of death from COVID. The bivalent vaccines did absolutely nothing for the elderly (at least it didn’t make things worse, but it didn’t make things better).

The two things that reduced the infection fatality rate (IFR) were:

  1. Natural immunity (everyone had had COVID one or more times)
  2. The arrival of the much less deadly Omicron strain as the dominant strain in late December 2021

We can see both effects very clearly in the data shown in Figure 1 above.

This is why the CDC isn’t touting this database as proof that the vaccines work. Neither is anyone on the pro-vax side of the narrative despite the fact that this data has been in public view for 2 years now.

So since nobody from their side wanted to analyze the data, I thought it would be a good idea if someone from our side took a look.

The reason why they never wrote about this to prove their case is that it shows the opposite. The so-called “misinformation spreaders” have been right all along: the vaccine clearly significantly increased the risk of an elderly person getting COVID for around 4 months. This is a huge problem because this was the time when the vaccine was supposed to be most effective (since we now know from FOIA requests that the FDA knew that the vaccine protection waned after 4 months).

Health officials claimed the vaccine could reduce risk of death by 10x. It’s right here in this tweet from an Australian government health authority NSW Health on August 17, 2021:

The data they never told us about (the US Nursing Home data) shows a completely different story: it did the opposite and increased the risk of death by as much as 1.6 times higher odds of dying.

The attempts to attack my analysis, to date, are addressed here. They are weak hand-waving arguments with no evidentiary support. At no time did anyone ever justify their arguments with any numbers derived from the data. None of the attackers will publish their “correct” analysis of this data or their investigations showing anomalies.

The fact is that this is “gold standard” data. It doesn’t get any “closer to the source” than this. There were over 2M records to analyze from over 15,000 elderly care facilities in the US. These are large numbers and the effect size was huge.

The Fisher exact p-value for the 1.7 OR peak on 2/28/21 is 2.6e-109 and the Z-score for the odds ratio is 23.53. In other words, this difference didn’t happen because I cherry picked a result or it happened by chance. It was caused by something. If it wasn’t the vaccine, what caused this statistically significant difference in the rate of death from the virus (it was the same variant as before the vaccines rolled out).

Equally important is that Apple Valley Village had a 0% death rate from COVID prior to the vaccine rollout: 26 infections and not a single death. Just 3 weeks after the week of the shots, they had 90 COVID infections which resulted in 28 deaths from COVID. My hypothesis can easily explain that. Theirs cannot. So you can throw all the FUD you want at the Nursing Home data, but the bottom line is that this one anecdote is very powerful because it is verifiable in the database and with employees, but it cannot be explained how the death rate in this nursing home suddenly got at least 9X worse after the shots rolled out that should have made the death rate 10X better. That is a 70X swing. This is why Professor Morris simply ignores this because he cannot explain it. In science, you can’t ignore data you don’t like. You have to be able to explain it or admit you cannot. Morris does neither.

Don’t you find it strange that this data has been publicly available for two years now and not a single pro-vaccine advocate has analyzed it and is touting it as “proof” the vaccines work?

At this point, the medical community has a choice: embrace the data and admit you were wrong or try to fight it.

History will not look kindly on attempts to dismiss this data.

The first rule of holes: if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

They are in a big hole. What will they do now?


September 7, 2023 | 1 Comment »

Leave a Reply

1 Comment / 1 Comment

  1. Quite sadly, I am reminded of Dr. Jessica Rose’s reports that indicated from her work analyzing VAERS that the elderly who were the most in need of protection were in fact the most reported as being injured by the toxic shots. So this report, as tragic as it remains, should not be surprising to any of us. Actually, if there were any other conclusion drawn it would in fact call into question the accuracy of the detailed work completed by Dr. Rose. Given that Rose’s observations among the VAERS reports stands as supportive of this latest report from Kirsh, makes Kirsch’s findings all the more relevant and damning and difficult to dispute.