Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on telegram
Share on whatsapp

No EVIDENCE that old people should get the shot

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on telegram
Share on email
Share on print

Some people claim that if you are old with multiple comorbidities, you should get the shot. But where is the evidence? Apparently, it doesn’t exist.

By Steve Kirsch


  1. Some people claim that elderly people with multiple comorbidities should take the COVID vaccines and boosters.
  2. The all-cause mortality data required to make such claims should be readily available to the public but isn’t.
  3. Nobody I know has seen any data that would justify these claims.
  4. It is unethical to recommend vaccination in any age group without clear and compelling data of an all-cause risk-benefit. Where is the risk-benefit analysis?
  5. If there was all-cause mortality data that supported the “safe and effective” narrative, it’s highly likely we’d all know about it.
  6. This is more evidence of a very corrupt system that no one in the mainstream medical community or media finds objectionable.


Slide 54 from “All you need to know” showing unfavorable risk-benefit ratio for vaccination of the elderly and a 3% death rate per dose

Among people who believe the vaccines are unsafe, there are still a few people who still believe it is recommended for older people.

Arguments that claim the vaccines are safe either mix timeframes or they ignore deaths from the vaccine

One doctor told me a story like the following, “I know of nursing homes where 30% of the residents died from COVID before the vaccines came out. And since we all know that the vaccines are 90% effective, even if the kill rate from the vaccine is 25% for the elderly, there is still a positive risk-benefit.”

Nope, that’s not convincing at all. There’s a lot of survivor bias here. If the first wave of COVID wiped out 30% of the elderly, then many of the people who remain are already immune from the virus. So giving them the shot at that point has likely no benefit at all, only downsides. For a fair comparison, we must compare the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated groups from the time the vaccines were first made available.

Other people just look at the death rates from COVID and claim that the per capita death rates are lower in people who have been boosted. Even if that were true, it’s irrelevant because it ignores the possibility the vaccine can kill people.

The VAERS data showed nobody should take the vaccine

When I looked at the VAERS data in October 2021, I found that the vaccines couldn’t be justified for any age group. Even if the vaccines worked as promised, they killed more people than they might have theoretically saved.

I’m open to being convinced I got it wrong, but nobody wants to show me any real-world data.

Here’s a comment from one of my readers (bold part is my emphasis):

At the very beginning of the injection campaigns which started in German nursing homes at the start of 2021, in some cases there were 25-35% deceased soon after each ‘vaccination’ campaign. Acu2020 (Reiner Fuellmich) interviewed a few whistleblowers from those places, it was really heartbreaking to listen to this. Elderly were dying alone, and families were not allowed to be with them. How long can we all stand for this, but most importantly, allow it to happen?

So we should not be ignoring the deaths caused by the vaccines. We need to be looking at what’s known as “all-cause mortality” which would factor in any deaths caused by the vaccine itself.

This is the data everyone needs to see: just two numbers

I’m not asking for a randomized trial. I’m just asking for the two numbers that are required to support the claims being made:

  1. What is the rate of all-cause mortality of the elderly who got the booster?
  2. What is the rate of all-cause mortality of the elderly who didn’t get vaccinated at all?

To obtain the two numbers, you’re basically following 1,000 matched elderly patients in both groups from December 19, 2020 forward, and counting the total all-cause mortality deaths from the day before they got their very first shot to 3 months after their third shot with the total # of deaths in the matched group who got no shots (over a matched timeframe). You’d match patients in each group so you are tracking patients over the same time range in each group (starting at when they got the shot). That’s the proper way to do the risk-benefit assessment.

Any person with a working brain would want to see these two numbers to justify recommending the vaccines.

Doctors aren’t asking for the data required for a proper risk-benefit analysis; they are recommending the vaccine based on the patently false assumption that the vaccines don’t kill anyone

So it is astonishing to me that:

  1. The risk-benefit study using all-cause mortality data has never been done. If it had been done and the result was positive, they’d be publicizing this widely. I suspect they’ve done the analysis, saw the results, and killed the study so nobody would know.
  2. No member of the mainstream medical community is demanding to see this data before making a recommendation to patients. There is no excuse for this. It’s completely irresponsible and reprehensible. Even President Obama, who is a self-proclaimed expert on COVID-19 misinformation, has not called for this data. You should always be very suspicious when nobody is calling for the data that is required to justify their beliefs.

Am I the only guy in the world who is publicly calling for these critical all-cause mortality statistics?

I think so.

This just goes to show you how totally screwed up our medical system is today. Doctors are recommending the vaccine, not based on the data and science, but based on the political science. They don’t even want to see the data. That’s why nobody is publicly calling for it.

It also shows you how corrupt the mainstream media is because, even after my article is published pointing this out, they are still never going to mention this or ask about it.

We are mandating this vaccine for people and nobody wants to see the risk-benefit for the elderly where the benefits are supposed to be the most compelling. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

Slide 55 from “All you need to know” showing unfavorable risk benefit for vaccination of the elderly and an 8% death rate from the vaccine
Slide 56 from “All you need to know” showing unfavorable risk benefit for vaccination of the elderly: deaths SKYROCKETED after the vaccines rolled out when they were supposed to PLUMMET

The anecdotal data confirms the VAERS data

The anecdotal data we have that leaks out is all consistent with the jabs being unsafe for all ages. For example,

  1. In the UK, all-cause deaths skyrocketed after the vaccines rolled out (see below)
  2. In Syracuse, NY, deaths skyrocketed after the vaccines rolled out (close to an 8X increase in the death rate)
  3. In Canada, at least 3% of patients at the Sunnycrest nursing home died after the boosters were given
  4. On Oahu, at least 8% of nursing home patients died after the vaccines were rolled out (the COVID death rate was very low)

What the funeral directors found

UK Funeral Director John O’Looney has said deaths skyrocketed after vaccination started. But vaccinations are supposed to save lives, not kill people. The deaths are supposed to plummet after vaccination. That was the whole idea, wasn’t it?

The Washington Post said that “In January and February, unvaccinated people died at … 20 times the rate of people with boosters.” So if that’s true, why did O’Looney’s business go crazy after the vaccines rolled out?

Those who believe that the vaccines saved lives need to explain O’Looney’s observations; he risked his career to let people know about what was going on.

The explanation is simple: we don’t count anyone who died from the shot itself. The people who survive the shot are of course more immune to the spike protein because we killed off the people who were susceptible. So sure, with each dose of the vaccine, we’re going to see more differences in terms of COVID susceptibility. But that’s not what we should be paying attention to at all.

We should be looking at all-cause mortality in the two groups. The two numbers I wrote about earlier.

I’m reaching out to Professor Andrew Noymer since he’s an expert relied upon by the Washington Post

This Washington Post article entitled Covid deaths no longer overwhelmingly among unvaccinated as toll on elderly grows says:

“It’s still absolutely more dangerous to be unvaccinated than vaccinated,” said Andrew Noymer, a public health professor at the University of California at Irvine who studies covid-19 mortality.

Surely the good professor would have evidence to back up his claim. I’ll let you know if he responds.

I have also reached out to California State Epidemiologist Erica Pan who said:

“Vaccines are one of the most important and longest-lasting tools we have to protect ourselves,” said California State Epidemiologist Erica Pan, citing state estimates showing vaccines have shown to be 85 percent effective in preventing death.


I’m skeptical that the elderly with (or without) multiple comorbidities will benefit from the vaccine because nobody I know has seen the evidence that this is true. If it was true, our good friend O’Looney and other funeral directors would be seeing deaths plummet. And if it was true, embalmers wouldn’t be seeing massive blood clots in up to 93% of their cases.

If there is evidence that the vaccines are beneficial for the elderly, can we see it? Please? And if not, at least tell us why we can’t.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x

Get in Touch!

Purpose of your Contact
Where can i reach you?
What would you like to discuss?

Are you intending to visit the Lorphic marketing agency?