search icon
Live chat

‘This Has Cost Millions of Lives’: Steve Kirsch on Suppression of Repurposed Drugs and a Spike in Deaths 5 Months After Vaccine Rollout

“The clue was the embalmers. The clue was the insurance companies. The embalmers never saw anything until midway in 2021. And then they started seeing these massive clots … It only started six months into the vaccination program,” says Steve Kirsch, the executive director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation.

Kirsch argues there are two peaks of vaccine-related mortality: one is within weeks of vaccination, and one is about five or six months after vaccination.

A successful entrepreneur and philanthropist, Kirsch has started a number of high-tech companies, including one of the first Internet search engines, Infoseek, and he is also one of two people who independently invented the optical mouse. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he founded the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund and raised millions of dollars to fund outpatient clinical trials for repurposed drugs.

“When I started speaking out against the vaccine, within a week, all 14 members of [my] scientific advisory board quit,” Kirsch says.

We discuss the suppression of repurposed drugs like fluvoxamine, perverse hospital incentives, and the bewildering lack of institutional interest in looking at data on vaccine-related injuries and deaths.

“Everybody’s drinking the Kool-Aid, and these vaccine-injured people are paying the price,” Kirsch says.

Subscribe to the American Thought Leaders newsletter so you never miss an episode.

* Click the “Save” button below the video to access it later on “My List.”


Jan Jekielek:

Steve Kirsch, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.

Steve Kirsch:

It’s great to be here. Thank you.

Mr. Jekielek:

Steve, we’re here at the FLCCC Conference focusing on treatment of spike-related disease. I couldn’t help but notice you don’t have an advanced degree like many of the very, very illustrious doctors here do, yet a lot of people seem to have a lot of respect for the work you’ve done and your particular attention to looking at data.

And I want to talk about that before we get there. Very early in the pandemic, you were involved in this COVID Early Treatment Fund. You started this COVID Early Treatment Fund and that early treatment was something that frankly officially didn’t exist.

Mr. Kirsch:

Well, it always existed but nobody was pursuing it for this disease because everyone was told that the vaccine was the only way out that we had this pandemic and that there’s one exit door and it’s labeled the COVID vaccine. And when I talk to doctors who I had funded over the past 20 years, all of them said that the fastest, cheapest and safest way to end the pandemic was to use repurposed drugs and supplements and see which ones would work against the virus.

And so, that’s what I did. I put in $1 million from my own money. I raised $5 million from other people. I recruited a Scientific Advisory Board of 14 people. And we started advertising that we wanted to fund people who were working on outpatient clinical trials to test repurposed drug treatments so that we could prove to the medical community that this was a viable way to treat COVID.

You couldn’t not do this. That’s the weird thing, right? Because it’s like if there’s a fire in front of you, you could say, “Oh, we need to build a fire station. And then we need to buy the fire trucks. And then we need to train people to do that.” Or you could go to your faucet, take a bucket of water and see if you could put the fire out yourself. Why wouldn’t you try the simple thing first before going to the time and billions of dollars expense that would take at least a year, if not more, to solve this problem when you could try the quick and easy, “Let’s test this. Let’s test this.”

Let’s take what’s on the shelf right now and let us apply that to this virus and see if we can make a difference with the stuff that’s already there. And in fact, what we discovered was that many of these drugs were remarkably effective. In fact, there’s one study that shows just rinsing your nose with a saline solution can reduce your chance of hospitalization by a factor of eight. No vaccine can do that today.

Now, the nasal rinse is virtually free. You just have to buy the water, the distilled water and salt and you mix it together. And you rinse your nose twice a day as soon as you know you have COVID. And there’s no risk. Nobody has ever died that I have heard of doing a nasal rinse on their nose. Nobody has been disabled. Safety profile is extreme and the efficacy is amazing. Why isn’t there a trial on that?

So, we had other drugs that looked promising. We funded the Fluvoxamine research. It was featured on “60 Minutes.” And “60 Minutes” wasn’t allowed to say that this could cure COVID. It could say, “Oh, well, they’re studying it.” And what we showed was that in the original Phase 2 trial which is a relatively small trial, you had 80 people or so on each side, one getting the placebo, one getting the drug. And there would be zero hospitalization on one side and 8.2 percent hospitalization rate for people who didn’t take the drug.

Now, 100 percent effective. So, I was on a webinar with a doctor who happened to be the track doctor at Golden Gate Fields. And it turned out that days after my interview, they had an outbreak at Golden Gate Fields—big outbreak of COVID. And so, the doctor was persuaded by this Phase 2 study and he did what the medical journal said not to do. He offered this drug fluvoxamine to people and if they wanted to take the drug, they could. And if they didn’t want to take the drug, they didn’t have to take the drug.

And what happened was that the people who felt really sick said, “I think I’m going to need some help. I’ll take the drug.” The people who felt really well said, “I don’t need a drug. Why should I take the risk of a drug when I don’t feel bad?” 12.5 percent of the people who didn’t feel bad ended up hospitalized. And one of them died. And these are relatively small numbers so this is a significant amount.

The people who took the drug, and three days later, typically sometimes it was two days, sometimes three days, sometimes four days, they recovered almost instantly. And their biggest complaint was, “How come I can’t get back to work? I feel fine.” And when people saw this, it was only like 30 percent of the people that opted for the drug when they got COVID because they were unsure. This is untested.

But it’s a tight knit community. And so, people who were on the drug told other people. And so, when the other people came down with COVID at the track, they went to the doctor and they said, “I want the drug.” And even the track management who didn’t have COVID said, “I want a prescription for this in case I get COVID.”

And also, there was no long haul COVID. If you got the drug early, 15 milligrams of fluvoxamine twice a day for 14 days, if you got the drug early, and pretty much everyone did because the track doctor was there, nobody had any long haul COVID symptoms. Zero. Out of 77 people, nobody had a long haul COVID. In the group that didn’t get the fluvoxamine, 40 percent had long haul COVID symptoms.

That’s not luck. That could only be explained by the drug working. And there were no long-term side effects. There were no downsides. There was nothing in terms of the side effects that would indicate any kind of safety signal. Fluvoxamine has been around for 30 years.

So, what happened? We applied to the FDA for an EUA [Emergency Use Authorization]. The FDA said, “Insufficient evidence, we’re not convinced. It was not a randomized trial because the people who were the sickest wanted the drug.” And I’m saying, “Whoa, wait a minute. This is better than randomized. You weren’t getting the crippled people, the sick people and were making them well. And so it’s not even a fair test. It’s like playing tennis with two hands tied behind your back and winning.”

FDA said, “Hey, it wasn’t a randomized trial.” And it took them six weeks to come back and say, “Well, insufficient evidence where we can’t approve your EUA application.” It was six weeks. This is something that is killing people that is a world emergency. And it took the FDA six weeks to act on data which could be reviewed in an hour.

The fix is in. They’re not going to prove anything. Even after a Phase 3 trial done in Brazil that was approved by the WHO, even after that came back positive, the NIH still has a neutral recommendation on fluvoxamine and there is no EUA. In fact, they tried again to get an EUA after that trial finished and proved again that it worked. And the FDA again said, “We’re not going to give you an EUA.”

But we get an EUA on a drug that is tested in eight mice. All eight mice who got the drug, this is the new bivalent vaccine, were challenged with the Omicron virus. All eight mice were infected by the virus, by Omicron. This is the Omicron variant, the bivalent booster. They’ve already had their primary series and they get boosted with a specific Omicron-specific booster and all eight mice get Omicron. That is approved by the FDA for use in hundred million people, however many people take the bivalent booster.

Explain to me how you can grant an EUA which the benefits outweigh the risks. Where is the benefit? There’s no evidence of a benefit, yet they approved it for that. But for fluvoxamine which had a stellar track record and an incredible safety record for 30 years, they said, “No, insufficient evidence.”

Mr. Jekielek:

Before we continue, I want to talk to you a little bit about how you got here. Because you said you had been funding doctors for example, right? Before all this happened, you had a serious disease that you funded doctors to try to help you figure out how to heal from that. So, maybe give me a little sense of your background and also your professional background.

Mr. Kirsch:

Sure. So, I’m a computer geek. Went to MIT, got bachelor’s and master’s there. Well, I worked for a company and then I ended up starting companies. I ended up doing startup companies. So, I did a mouse company, an optical mouse company. I invented the optical mouse. I did my Infoseek, one of the first search engines on the internet. I did Frame Technology. It’s a sort of desktop publishing.

And I used to have this resume in LinkedIn of all of the things and companies I did and deep descriptions of each of my startups. And a couple of them were billion-dollar startups. But LinkedIn basically removed all of my accounts, all of my connections, removed my accounts and permanently banned me because I made two posts that the vaccines were unsafe. For that, my career was wiped off of LinkedIn and Wikipedia.

Then I got a National Caring Award. It was presented to me by Hillary Clinton. There are only a few people every year that get a National Caring Award. It’s a big honor. It’s a big event held in Washington D.C. And Senator Clinton was the person presenting my award to me. And they had different people present to different people. And it’s a high honor.

That used to be part of my Wikipedia profile. As soon as I wrote my article saying these vaccines are not safe, my National Caring Award disappeared from my Wikipedia profile. There are no words to describe how unethical that is. Medium banned me because I said that fluvoxamine was 100 percent effective in all the trials which it was at the time.

And so, when you tell the truth on social media, if you speak against what the government narrative is, you end up being banned and you end up being demonized. And when I started speaking out against the vaccine, within a week, all 14 members of the Scientific Advisory Board quit. They said they never wanted to talk to me again.

Mr. Jekielek:

Of your Scientific Advisory Board?

Mr. Kirsch:

Yes. That I had recruited for the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund. All 14 of those people said, “Take me off your website. Remove me from your videos. We don’t want to be associated with you at all. Never contact us again.” And I said, “I don’t want to be a misinformation spreader. If I got it wrong, please tell me how I got it wrong because I’m just looking at the data and it seemed very straightforward to me that this is the most dangerous vaccine in human history. The data is clear. Did I make a mistake?”

And they said, “Don’t ever contact us again. What you’re doing is wrong. It’s evil. You are costing lives. We never want to speak to you again and we won’t tell you anything about what you said is wrong.”

Mr. Jekielek:

Tell me a little bit about the research that you were involved with before all of this, before COVID, before we jump in because I absolutely want to talk about the data by the way. That’s part of-

Mr. Kirsch:

So, I made a lot of money for my startups and I put that into a charitable fund. And what I wanted to do was good work. So, I had an ambition to cure all diseases. How many diseases could I cure with the money that I had? There wasn’t a lot of money at the time. It grew to about $100 million dollars.

And so, I hired a staff and the directive was, fund projects where we can make a difference in diseases. And so, one of the projects was glaucoma for example because there hadn’t been any progress in glaucoma. And I said, “Sure.” And I didn’t have glaucoma. It’s just like, “Hey, let’s look for opportunities where we can make a difference with the money and sort of doing things a little bit differently to try to get a better result.

And so, for example, we partnered with the Glaucoma Research Foundation and funded this program called Catalyst for a Cure. I’m still writing the checks. I recently made a $1.5 million commitment to fund Glaucoma Research. And we did that because we thought it could make a difference.

And so, we recruited a Scientific Advisory Board in our foundation to go and advise us on where to park the money, who should we fund? We funded a lot of top scientists. One in fact ended up winning the Nobel Prize. So, that gave me a background in terms of funding medical research and understanding medical research.

And then 10 years later, I developed glaucoma. And hey, fortuitous, I had no idea at the time but isn’t that remarkable that a disease that I started funding a cure on was a disease that I later in life then found myself a victim of.

Mr. Jekielek:

So, this presumably helped for sitting care.

Mr. Kirsch:

Yes. Basically I had a background then in talking to scientists and understanding clinical trials and reading scientific studies and so forth because that was part of the job to responsibly deploy funds to fund these researchers.

And I also developed Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia which is a blood cancer that’s incurable and again reached out to find the researchers. And I helped to fund research that could lead to a cure. So, things like having a cell line for Waldenstrom’s that was reliable, that was human-based and was stable and so forth is one of the projects that we funded so that we could try to move the research forward.

Mr. Jekielek:

So, it strikes me as incredibly odd and I keep bringing up this question with people I interview. And I didn’t fully grasp it myself because I didn’t have nearly the experience you did. But as you said earlier, why not get some water and try to douse the fire instead of building the whole infrastructure beforehand, right? It’s just-

Mr. Kirsch:

Right. Why not try easy before you try hard?

Mr. Jekielek:

I didn’t fully grasp early on that basically, people were told only come to get treatment once you’re really sick. And it-

Mr. Kirsch:

That’s what they were told. They were told that there was no cure. Fauci told them there’s no cure. And I actually went to the Gates Foundation because I had limited funds, so I went to the Gates Foundation. I said, “Hey, would you help me fund early treatment because that’s the fastest, safest, cheapest way. Let’s try what’s on the shelf.” They said, “No, we’re out of money.” This is the Gates Foundation saying, “We won’t give you a dime because we’re out of money.”

The fix is in. They’re out of money because they’re deploying every dime for the vaccine program. The vaccine program, the vaccine program. We had very promising drugs on the shelf that looked promising that should have been tested.

Mr. Jekielek:

And as I’ve learned, some were tested against SARS-1, against MERS. There are papers. There are NIH-funded papers that had tested,  I think it was hydroxychloroquine against MERS if I recall correctly.

So, let me mention this. So, there’s something, I just read Dr. Joe Ladapo’s new book. And one of the things, the most fascinating thing in there for me was he mentions how doctors are taught about vaccines. And he talks about how it’s really different than the way they’re taught about essentially all other medications. There’s a certain kind of reverence that doctors are basically taught that these things have transformed the world. And it’s almost he likened to a kind of indoctrination.

Mr. Kirsch:


Mr. Jekielek:

I wonder if this … Aside from there being an edict around this about how this could be treated or not, that there’s just this kind of inherent sense in the medical community that this always is going to be the answer.

Mr. Kirsch:

Yes. This is the big myth. And, hey, I believe the myth, I bought the Kool-Aid. Doctors believe the Kool-Aid because they’re taught this. And doctors don’t have time to research everything. Nobody has time to research everything. So, you have to trust people. And everybody’s saying, “Oh, vaccines are safe and effective. Oh, the vaccines ended polio. The vaccines ended smallpox.” And you have all these stories that you hear.

And when you’re only hearing one side of the narrative, you tend to believe it, right? There’s nobody there to challenge it. It’s like with these vaccines. On CNN, you only hear one side of the narrative. It’s as if the other side doesn’t exist. It’s almost like, “Oh yeah, we’re CNN. We try to get somebody on the other side of the narrative but, man, there’s nobody opposing it. All the doctors are saying it’s safe and effective and everybody should take it. And that is what you should do because everybody’s saying it.”

Fundamentally, the news media is supposed to say, “Well, this side said this, this side said this, you decide.” But what they’ve turned into is an advocacy organization for the government narrative. And it’s not that they are fans of the government but the government narrative of course is the mainstream medical thinking that is influenced by Tony Fauci. It was Tony that funded the gain of function research that he wasn’t supposed to fund that led to the creation of the COVID virus.

And it was U.S. biotechnology that was involved in this. And we know that because there is a Moderna patent application that had a very interesting 19-nucleotide sequence that is not found in a natural virus. Now, it is found in nature but it is never found in a virus, and it can’t get into a virus if somebody didn’t put it there.

And everybody knows that the first outbreak happened at that Wuhan wet market. Do you know how far it is from the Wuhan Institute of Technology and the wet market? They’re right across the river. Why is it that when the investigators who are looking into this went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, they didn’t open their doors and say, “Hey, no problem. We’ve got nothing to hide here. The sequence of our virus that we’ve been working on doesn’t match at all the sequence of what broke out at the Wuhan wet market.”

No, you weren’t allowed to see anything at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And in fact, Jeffrey Sachs, who was put in charge of an independent investigation committee by the “Lancet,” recruited a committee. They started looking at the data. And he came back two years later and he said, “This is a man-made virus.”

So, what happened when the news broke about this virus? Tony sends off a message to his friends, Kristian Andersen and some other people saying, “Hey, what do you think?” And they come back and say, “Definitely manmade, couldn’t have come out of nature because of the unique sequences.”

And then we see redacted emails on the FOIA requests. And then magically a week later, it came out of nature with no new evidence. Why were those emails redacted? Do you know that any committee chairman in Congress, meaning any Democrat who is a committee chairman, can go to the NIH and request Tony Fauci’s unredacted emails and we would know the truth? Why wouldn’t they do that? Don’t we want to know where the virus came from?

In fact, when Jeffrey Sachs started getting close and said, “Hey, it came out of U.S. biotechnology,” what happened? He was shut down. All of a sudden, nobody wanted to know where this virus came from.

Now, the CEO of Moderna was asked the question, “This 19-nucleotide sequence that’s found in SARS-CoV-2, it matches the sequence in your patent. How does that happen?” He said, “I will look into that.” We still don’t have an answer. It’s been a year later. How’s it going? Why isn’t the press asking him that question? How it’s going?

If we don’t want to repeat the same mistake, how could we not know? It’s like if somebody goes and shoots a million people, do you want to know who’s responsible? Or when you start getting close to finding the source, do you say, “Hey, let’s cut the funding. I’m not interested in finding out who killed those million Americans, who’s responsible for killing the million Americans,” other than maybe Rand Paul and Senator Ron Johnson who’s interested in challenging Tony Fauci and how magically every single early treatment protocol for COVID is deemed to be not acceptable to the NIH.

Wow. All these early treatment protocols that work, the Fareed and Tyson protocol used on over 10,000 people with no hospitalizations and no deaths. Why is the NIH not even interested in looking at their data? This has cost millions of lives. And not only that, they compounded the problem by not just withholding drugs but when you went into the hospital, they gave you a treatment protocol that was almost certain to kill you. This is why we have so many COVID deaths because the hospitals basically follow a very bad protocol for treating COVID, but it’s approved by the NIH.

And if you stick with the NIH and the CDC-approved protocols, you get compensated and there’s no liability. Your Honor, I did what the authorities told me to do. We treated them by the book. I’m sorry he died but we’re not liable because we followed the directive of the government.

Now, if we really want to end COVID in this country, we should be incentivizing hospitals based on their cure rate. Why? If you’ve got 100 patients coming in and nobody dies, we’re going to pay you $50,000 a patient. And if people die, we’re only going to pay you $2,000. You should be incentivizing the outcome that you want. And, of course, the incentives aren’t transparent.

Mr. Jekielek:

There seems to be a terrible lack of transparency throughout. I mean, even just this sort of gathering data, I was just looking at one of your recent posts actually, you responded to Surgeon General of Florida, Joe Ladapo’s new guidance basically saying that under 39, males shouldn’t touch the vaccine because the cost outweighs the benefits. Essentially he’s got a whole study around that. You wrote a piece to support him but you also showed some very troubling data most of which you got from a whistleblower I think.

Mr. Kirsch:

Yes. So, Joe’s study basically showed that it was 1.96 times. So, it’s almost a doubling, effectively a doubling of the rate of death, cardiac death following in the 28 days following vaccination. It’s elevated by a factor of two versus the remaining period of the study.

And so, that higher rate in that 28-day period he associates with, 28 days right after the vaccine, if the vaccine was like a saline shot, the rate should be the same over the time period of the study. It shouldn’t be elevated at all.

And what he should have done was he should have looked at the rate over a six-month period from when you got your last shot and looked at the rates of death. How did they go? Did they go up and down or whatever? But he made an assumption that if the vaccine kills people … And it’s a perfectly reasonable assumption. If the vaccine kills people, it would probably be in the first 28 days, right?

Because you see the VAERS numbers and the VAERS numbers go up and then they go down and they taper off after 28 days. So, it looks like, “Hey, if it kills people, the VAERS number shows that it’s going to kill people within the first 28 days.” But you see that’s a mirage because if it kills people after 28 days, it’s not going to get reported in the VAERS system because nobody’s going to associate it with the vaccine. If it kills people six months after the vaccine, it’s not going to get reported into the VAERS system. Nobody’s going to make the connection. How could you make a connection? Six months nothing happened and then you suddenly die? Come on, it can’t be the vaccine or can it?

So, Joe basically said, “Let’s look at the rate in first 28 days and then let’s look at the rate for the next four months after that and compare them.” And if the rate is higher then we know it must be the drug because it shouldn’t have changed. It’s completely random.

So, he found a 2x elevation for a cohort which is 18 to 39 males that took the drug and it could be limited to the mRNA. And he started eliminating. He said, “Oh gee, it’s only affecting the mRNA vaccines.” And so, he may need some calculations. And it turned out to be a statistically significant elevation. So, clearly there was an elevation of cardiac death.

But he found also that, “Hey gee, it looks like these vaccines are actually life-saving for people—that it lowered mortality versus baseline,” because he found fewer deaths in the 2018 period. Well-

Mr. Jekielek:

And so, one of the older cohorts.

Mr. Kirsch:

Yes, in the older cohorts and if you were younger than 18 and so forth. So depending on what he looked at and whether he is looking at all-cause mortality versus cardiac mortality. And so it looked like, “Wow, this vaccine looks like it’s saving lives.”

There’s one little problem with that conclusion. And he never concluded it because it wasn’t statistically significant. The problem with that conclusion of course is that I know that these vaccines are nothing but deadly. There’s a peak of mortality five months out from the vaccine. There are two-time constants.

The vaccine will either kill you very quickly within weeks because of inflammation or it will cause clogging in your arteries that will show up about five months later. And so, there are two different mechanisms going on and they have two different time constants. And it turns out that the five-month death is actually larger. There are more people that died five months later than there are that happened within the first 28 days.

So, he’s now comparing this higher death rate versus the lower death rate, but it’s still elevated from baseline. When you look at the first 28 days compared to the numbers here, it looks like, “Wow, this is one-third the deaths of baseline but it’s not baseline.” That’s the problem. Because in his study, he only looked at people who were vaccinated and died, he never compared with the unvaccinated.

So, rising tide lifts all boats and it lifts the death and after 28 days, it starts raising those numbers so that when you do a comparison of the first 28 days versus the other period, you say, “Wow, the drug looks like it’s reducing it from the baseline rate because you never thought that the baseline rate was actually excess deaths due to the vaccine.”

And so then when you see this all-cause data that of course doesn’t look at that but just says, “Wow, there’s a big spike in vaccination in April and there’s a big spike in death on September 9th,” five months difference. And guess what? It’s in multiple countries. There are at least five different analyses that show this five-month delay, this five months, 5.5 months. It’s somewhere between five and six months.

And so, I’m getting these independent analyses done in other countries where you’re seeing the exact same delay. And it’s not a, “Oh, well, that’s because they gave the booster shots then.” No, because the people who are dying, the death records show, “Oh, they died five months after their last vaccine.” So, you have to again look at the people who died and you look at when did they get shot last?

The clue was the embalmers. The clue was the insurance companies. The embalmers never saw anything until midway in 2021. And then they started seeing these massive clots that were white and they’re solid and they don’t look like blood clots. In fact, they’re not blood. These things are massive clots. Some of them are six feet long. Embalmers have never seen anything like it. And it only started six months into the vaccination program.

Was it because the vaccine suddenly changed? No, it’s because it took six months to clog up your arteries. It’s like how do people die? When their arteries get clogged up. You think from birth they do that? No, it takes decades to clog your arteries with plaques and so forth. In this case, it takes months for this spike protein to essentially accelerate this process of creating these amyloid proteins that are clogging up your blood vessels.

So, the embalmers were a clue. It only started happening half a year into it, that’s when they started seeing it. So, that kind of makes sense because some people were vaccinated in January. So, it takes six months from January. Okay. There you are in the middle of the year which is when the embalmers started seeing the uptick.

And then you said that you saw the same thing with the insurance companies, Q3, Q4, massive excess deaths in young people. Nothing in Q1 and Q2. How come we didn’t see the deaths in April? Nobody could figure that out. Once you open your mind to considering the possibility that maybe there’s a six-month delay, then all of a sudden all the data fits.

I presented this today at this FLCCC Conference. And then I talked to Meryl Nass who’s one of the speakers. And she’s been in this field for a long, long time. And I said, “Did you disagree with anything I said?” She said, “No.” I said, “Did you know about the five-month period?” And she said, “Yeah, yeah, I knew about that.” Since that article appeared, other people did independent analyses to confirm that this was happening in other countries. So, it’s not just me, it’s not just me looking at the data in a strange way.

Mr. Jekielek:

Yes. And I think you mentioned that there were basically five datasets from different places that show a similar picture of this sort of increase in all-cause mortality, five odd months out. Now, this is the point at which you would think that there would be some very in-depth research that would be being done to actually figure out what’s going on, right?

Mr. Kirsch:


Mr. Jekielek:

But we’re not seeing that.

Mr. Kirsch:

No, of course not. We’re looking the other way. The Israeli government wasn’t collecting much safety data at all in the first year after they rolled out the vaccines. They said to the population, “You get vaccinated. You get double vaccinated. You get boosted.” They were collecting no safety data. It was very difficult to report safety data.

So, a year after Israel started vaccinating people, they said, “Hey, we should get serious about the safety data because people are asking questions.” So, they recruited a top notch team of Israeli scientists to design the collection system to collect the data and see how safe it was. So, they started doing that and about two months into it, they report, “HEY, we’ve got a problem here. This vaccine is not safe. We’re seeing these safety signals. It’s not the final report. We’ll have that in.” It was June of 2022 because it started in basically early 2022.

And so, they reported that and the Israeli government said, “Hey, thanks very much, we’ll let people know.” And then when they met in June with the final report on the first five most frequent adverse events, they asked, “Hey, how come you didn’t tell the Israeli people what was going on? We told you this thing is throwing out safety signals and these side effects are serious and they’re caused by the vaccine. How come you never say anything?”

So, what did they do? They sat on it for two months and then issued a report saying there’s nothing to see here. So, that would be the end of it except for one little problem. One of the people on the meeting recorded the call and it shows that the Ministry of Health was informed that these vaccines are not safe and effective. And it showed that the vaccine is actually causing harm in lots of different areas that have not been reported or recognized by the drug companies or the FDA or anybody else. So, super troubling result.

And so, the reporter gets her hands on it and she asked the media, “Hey, anybody want to see the tapes?” And nobody is interested in seeing the tapes. There’s no investigation on the Israeli Ministry of Health for burying that information. The only place that takes it, that wants to take the story is “GB News,” Neil Oliver at “GB News.” These guys are the only ones that want to promote the story.

And then the Epoch Times says, “We want to see the data, too.” So, we arranged to have a private briefing for the Epoch Times. They come in with someone who speaks Hebrew so they can verify everything that was said and they write up four stories on it. The Epoch Times and GB News, that’s it. Total news blackout everywhere else.

How can you have a safety study on a vaccine which people are being mandated to take showing significant adverse events that nobody wants to see the data? So, I thought, “Oh, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt.” So, I emailed all the members of the outside committees of the FDA and CDC saying, “Hey, would you like to see the data? I’m good friends with the journalist that has the tapes and we can arrange a private briefing for you.” No response at all.

So, I make a phone call. I send text messages to the chair of the ACIP Committee. This is the final stop. When you get a vaccine like the final buck stops here is that ACIP committee, the outside committee of the CDC to pass on a recommendation to say, “Yes, you should do this.”

So before the CDC does something, they’re supposed to go to the ACIP committee and get independent approval. So, the chief guard on this committee, the head of the committee is Professor Grace Lee at Stanford University. Grace Lee has never responded to any email communication or anything I have ever sent her in my entire life.

I wasn’t expecting anything on this one either but I said, “Grace, hey, I got the Israeli data. Surely you want to see it.” She doesn’t respond to anything. There is absolutely no reason in the world for not wanting to see the data unless you have willful blindness. And that’s what it’s all about. There are thousands of safety signals of symptoms in VAERS, thousands that are elevated by 10 times or more versus a normal vaccine.

How is that possible that they don’t even see a safety signaling for menstrual issues? Menstrual issues popped up in the Israeli data as the number one most significant signal in their safety studies. It was menstrual issues. You’ll never guess what the number one symptoms in the VAERS database that were elevated from the COVID vaccines.  Menstrual problems, what do you know? 

The VAERS system is actually accurately reflecting the same information that the Israelis collected. But even though these menstrual problems are elevated by close to 10,000 times normal, the CDC has never recognized menstrual problems as a side effect of the COVID vaccines. How is that possible?

In fact, the NIH has never recognized that vaccine injuries could be caused by the COVID vaccines. Dr. Nath at this NIH spent a year studying people who are vaccine-injured. And he said, “We can’t make a causal connection between you getting the vaccine and all these symptoms that you’re having.”

That is inexplicable because I did a survey. I got a thousand people to report into me their symptoms after they got the vaccine. These are people who are vaccine-injured. These people go from having no symptoms at all or perfectly normal to having up to 86 symptoms that are unique to people who have vaccine injury and that most people would have zero of, stuff like bleeding behind your eyes. This stuff never happens to normal people. Or inability to speak or I had to crawl to the bathroom in order to get to the bathroom.

These people have … 10 percent of them have 30 or more of these symptoms. I have zero. How can you go from zero to 30 to 86 out of about 120 different symptoms that were on the list right after you get vaccinated? It’s not the day after but these people very quickly develop and go from perfectly normal to my life is ruined.

Marsha Gee, perfectly healthy nurse, top nurse at UC-San Diego. And they think so highly of her that she’s one of the first to get the vaccine. She gets vaccine-injured within 24 hours of her shot. And what do they do? They throw her under the bus. They don’t support her at all.

And so, they basically pretend that these … They knew at the very beginning of the vaccine program, they knew there was trouble but they basically looked the other way. She described it. I said, “What? So, they basically threw you under the bus?” She said, “No, it’s worse than that. They threw me under the bus and then they took the bus and they ran over me and then they backed up the bus and ran over me again and then moved it forward.” It’s like that. That’s how she described it.

So, this is what happens to people who get injured. They get marginalized. They don’t get any help. People say, “Oh, no, you’re crazy. It’s not related to the vaccine.” And people are applying the safe and effective narrative where everybody’s drinking the Kool-Aid. And these vaccine-injured people are paying the price.

And there is a group called Died Suddenly on Facebook. Facebook took it down. It grew to over 300,000 people. At the end, it was growing at the rate of over 20,000 people joining a day. There’s a thing called a precautionary principle of medicine which says that, “Hey, if you don’t have an alternate explanation for this, you should assume that it’s the vaccine that caused these injuries because that’s the conservative thing to do unless you have a better explanation. You’ve got a better explanation?” “Oh, it’s global warming or maybe there was smoking pot or something or it’s a fentanyl overdose or whatever.”

But unless you have an explanation for how somebody can go from perfectly healthy to having 30 or more serious symptoms, you have to believe that it is the vaccine that causes that. That is the obvious thing.

Mr. Jekielek:

And at the very least, there should be great interest and a lot of work being done to actually understand what’s really happening.

Mr. Kirsch:

There should be.

Mr. Jekielek:


Mr. Kirsch:

There should be. But you see, I’ve tried to reach out to Dr. Nath and I said, “Hey Dr. Nath, I’ve got this great database, a thousand people. I have their names. I have their addresses. I have their phone numbers. You can contact anyone. And I’ve got the stories and I’ve mapped out all the symptoms, all 120 for each of the people and so forth. You can dice it and slice it. You can do any kind of analysis on it that you want. Would you like to see the data?” No.

I got a response from his assistant saying that Dr. Nath is no longer treating the vaccine-injured. It was never really part of his research studies. It’s being done by other people. That’s not true. That’s a lie. That’s a lie.

And so in VAERS, they have a program where the CDC says, “We use this formula to monitor for safety signals.” And the formula consists of this thing called PRR, the proportional reporting ratio. And they look at chi-squared. And they looked at the number of events. And if all three of those are triggered then it’s declared that there’s a safety signal.

Now, look, if they were really interested in safety, it’d be an OR. If the guy sprouts horns, that would be a safety signal. If his legs get cut off or he loses both of his limbs, that would be safety. It’s like you do an OR condition. You don’t want to say, “Oh, if he loses his legs and he uses his arms and he has a stroke, then that would be a safety signal.” You never have AND condition for a safety signal. It should be an OR condition. So, these guys make it really tough.

And the other thing about this PRR formula is that if you’ve got a very unsafe vaccine which has thousands of adverse events, then any event gets drowned out because it’s the number of times that this event occurred versus the total number of events.

Mr. Jekielek:


Mr. Kirsch:

So, if you only have three distinct events, you can get a very high signal because if one of them is double, it’s going to be compared to the other two. But if you have let’s say, and a ridiculous case, you have a million adverse event types, then-

Mr. Jekielek:

They’re all tiny.

Mr. Kirsch:

Yes. And then the ratio is always close to zero because the denominator is so large. And you have to get a PRR value of greater than two, you have a chi-square, a two-by-two chi-squared of greater than four. And then you have to have a certain number of events.

So, all three have to be triggered. And I’m thinking … When I do this, I criticize this and I say to the committee and I write and it’s in the public record that I told them that this safety signal, if you have a vaccine which is very dangerous, it’s never going to fire on anything because of the PRR condition. And I tried to contact the committee directly and they say, “No, no, you have to submit it through the official channels.” So, I submitted through the official channels and I have a record of it. I have a record that I told them this a year ago.

So, of course, nothing happens. They never changed the safety signal. So, I’m curious. I wonder how close we ever got. And so I calculated for death. Death is over the threshold. It’s like three-point something. It’s over the two threshold. I’m going like, “Wow.”

So, death is so dramatic. It’s so huge a safety signal that it even overcomes the flawed PRR formula for a dangerous vaccine which would normally bury all safety signals. This one was so huge that it broke through on both PRR. Chi-squared was off the charts. I think the number was like 10,000 compared to four. The threshold is at four and the chi-squared number is over 10,000.

And then, of course, the number of events, it’s a small number of events and this is like, yeah, it’s like 30,000 versus a threshold of 20 or something. I don’t remember the number. So, we’re not even close here. And I have two independent statisticians who I ask, “Hey, could you independently verify that I didn’t get it wrong because I’m calling up the CDC people saying, ‘Hey, we got an emergency here. You got a safety signal of death and you’re not letting anybody know about it and you’re not investigating it.'”

And I know that because we did a Freedom of Information Act request and there is nothing in that Freedom of Information Act request which said, “What kind of safety monitoring you’re doing and let me see the reports.” There is nothing that says that the death safety signal in VAERS is triggered.

So, you get the independent validation from two different statisticians. And there’s no response from the CDC. They won’t even return your phone call. You talk to the press people there which are the gatekeepers because you’re not allowed to talk to the scientists at the CDC. You’re not allowed to call them and ask them questions. As a reporter, you have to go through the press people. The press people don’t return your calls.

This is a vaccine which is mandated which is throwing a death safety signal and I can’t get a call back from Martha Sharon at the CDC. I even sent emails to Rochelle Walensky. I never get a response. And so, it is so unambiguous and everybody who’s doing this calculation is getting the same answer that I got.

Mr. Jekielek:

This is obviously stunning information that this VAERS safety signal was triggered and really nothing’s been done about it officially. I’m not surprised that it was triggered because it seems again even anecdotally that they’re serious that there’s a volume of harms out there that’s very significant, it seems, right? So again, you would be expecting there’d be incredible amounts of work being done to try to figure out the-

Mr. Kirsch:

Yes. You don’t have 20,000 people a day joining Died Suddenly group if there wasn’t something going on.

Mr. Jekielek:

So, why this unbelievable disinterest? I refuse to believe that it’s all industry capture although I’ve been convinced that there’s a lot of industry capture, right?

Mr. Kirsch:

It’s not. No, clearly it’s not, because our friends basically don’t want to talk to me because I’m an evil anti-vaxxer. And I had an insider at the CDC and I asked him, “Hey, what’s going on here?” Surely there must be a couple people that know what’s going on and everybody else is fool. He said, “No, it’s all groupthink.”

It’s all groupthink. They all are trained to believe that vaccines are safe and effective. They are all mentally conditioned when they see this rise in VAERS, they say, “Oh, it must be over-reporting because these vaccines have to be safe.” Their reasoning is simple. They look at the clinical trials and they presume that the drug companies are telling the truth.

Everybody is conditioned from birth that vaccines are safe and effective. Your pediatrician says, “Hey, make sure your kids get all the vaccines and all the required vaccines your schools require in California. The schools require you to get 10 vaccines.” And you’re led to believe from the time that you pop out of the womb and you can’t understand what’s going on at that point. But you’re led to believe that the vaccines are safe and effective. All the doctors are led to believe the vaccines are safe and effective.

And nobody has any interest in going and looking at the studies and so forth because they got more important things to do than to rehash that the earth is not … If the earth is round and it rotates around the sun, who’s going to go back and check out that calculation to make sure the data was right? Nobody. So, it’s like that. It’s like who’s going to check that global warming really exists? Well nobody, they’re going to trust the scientists. They’ll trust what is the scientific consensus on global warming?

Same thing for vaccines. They’ll trust the scientific consensus because if there was something wrong with vaccines, surely there’d be people that would be speaking out about it. So, everybody makes the assumption that these vaccines are safe and effective.

And then when the FDA comes out and the FDA has this track record of, “Oh, we’re really tough, we only let one percent of the drugs in and pass them and give them an EUA. We’re really strict.” And so, they have this track record. So they believe, just like I did, that the FDA, because of their long track record of not approving lots of drugs, meant that they had a very high standard.

And so when something goes through FDA approval, you immediately assume that it has to be safe. And therefore anybody who says anything differently has to be a misinformation spreader because this is the FDA. They have no conflicts of interest. They’re out there to protect the public. This is why Paul Merrick got the vaccine.

So, you have a really smart guy like Paul Merrick. And I asked Paul, “Why’d you get the vaccine?” He said, “Well, I trusted my peers. They were saying that the vaccine was safe.” Those peers trusted other peers. Those peers trusted other peers. There’s only one guy looking at the data saying, “Huh, whoa.” And he’s either incompetent or corrupt. But once that guy says it’s okay then it just trickles down and everybody believes it’s safe.

And so, if the guy looking at the VAERS data is not doing his job, we only got the one VAERS expert really at the CDC. If he screws up, man, he’s got a ripple effect that’s worldwide. Everybody thinks it’s safe. So, everybody’s conditioned to think it’s safe. So you get a side effect, you die a week after you get the vaccine. Oh, bad luck.

And everybody is seeing, in their own silo, they’re seeing these deaths but they think, “Ah, it’s just bad luck for me.” Because nobody’s allowed to go on social media and say, “Hey, we got death from the vaccine it looks like.” And because they’re going to have their account removed by Facebook, by Instagram, by LinkedIn, by Medium, whatever. All these people will have their accounts removed if they tell the truth.

So, everybody’s looking at their own silo of data thinking like, “Hey, wow, this bad stuff is happening to me, but fortunately nobody else is reporting it.” And so then, all the doctors are basically saying nothing. Everybody’s saying, “Get the vaccine. Get the vaccine. Get the vaccine.” In fact, if they don’t do that, they will be fired because they’ll be considered misinformation spreaders and we don’t have misinformation spreaders on our hospital payroll.

So, that’s the reason all the doctors are saying, “Take the vax, it’s safe.” All the doctors are saying it, everybody believes it. So, when I come out as an engineer, “You’re not a doctor. Oh my gosh, you don’t have medical credentials. You’re looking at the data but you really don’t understand science.”

No, I had the luxury. I lost my job because I spoke out. I founded a high-tech company in the digital money business and I lost my job because one of our customers basically said, “Hey, we’re not going to do business with a company where the CEO is anti-science. And so, if you want our business, something’s going to have to change. Otherwise we’re going to go elsewhere.”

They said to me, “Look, your views are causing a problem for the business. Either you silence yourself or you’re going to have to leave.” And I said, “That’s perfectly reasonable because the Board of Directors have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders.” So, I didn’t have a problem with that. So, I left because that was the right thing to do. So, I left millions of dollars on the table because that was the right thing to do because people’s lives were at stake and somebody has to speak out.

And I had the means to be able to quit my job and still be able to provide for my family. And I’ve never had any regrets that I made that decision. Now, we lost a lot of friends. Most of our friends don’t talk to us anymore. But I made hundreds of thousands of new friends and people are so grateful. I mean, it is such a difference versus before. I would never get that in my entire professional career.

And if there aren’t people like me that are doing this, what has happened here will go on and on and on for decades and millions of people will lose their life or be injured by these vaccines. And I’ve seen multiple analyses of data, whether it’s from San Diego or Ontario, that show there is no hospitalization benefit, that there is no infection benefit and there is no death benefit.

So, we are doing all this. We are turning the country upside down and mandating a vaccine which is killing people. And that’s why I’m doing this because if I can help stop that and I can say, “Hey, I was part of that. I was there. I showed up as a human being and I did the right thing and I paid a price but I did the right thing.”

Mr. Jekielek:

It recently dawned on me, everything you’re describing doesn’t look very good but there are people like yourself trying to figure things out. There’s actually quite a few … Every day, there’s more people that realize that something’s amiss that in the future will maybe act to change the system. Because if anything, these last few years have really exposed fundamental problems that need to be resolved.

So, I keep thinking about that. This is fascinating … It is a very significant silver lining because the problem isn’t just now, the problem is something that’s been stewing for a long time.

Mr. Kirsch:

It’s been stewing for a long time. Yes, this just exposes it and it makes it obvious because what happens is people starting to get impacted by people that they know or people in their family who are killed by the vaccine.

Mr. Jekielek:

The scale of the harms is just so significant that it can’t be ignored.

Mr. Kirsch:

Right, that it can’t be ignored. Exactly. It cannot be ignored. And that’s what makes this an opportunity to create change because it’s affecting people’s lives and people are becoming aware of this when something happens. Like Dr. Aseem Malhotra, father died of cardiac issues. His father didn’t have any cardiac issues at all. He’s perfectly healthy. How could he have died from cardiac issues? It didn’t make sense to Aseem.

So, he said, “Maybe what they were telling me about the vaccine wasn’t true. Let’s just check the data.” And so, he took a look under the hood and he looked at the data. He is appalled. He can’t believe it. So, he changes from being a promoter of the vaccine on TV and now he is telling the world that this is the biggest medical disaster in our lifetime and that the vaccine should be immediately stopped. And he writes two papers which are published in peer-reviewed medical journals. And this is happening over and over.

Paul Merrick, same thing. He believed in the vaccine, took the vaccine because his peers told him it’s safe and effective. And then he started meeting vaccine-injured. And then he started looking at the data and he said, “Wow, all this data is negative. Oh, I was lied to.” And he is appalled at what has gone on in the medical community and what is not going on.

If you write a paper that shows the myocarditis rates like Peter McCullough did along with Jessica Rose, they wrote a paper published in a medical journal, peer-reviewed medical journal, sells best pass peer review, gets published in the journal. And the publisher unilaterally decides to withdraw the paper for no reason. There is no stated reason that’s legitimate for withdrawing the paper. I mean, that is corruption.

But the medical community is silent about all of this because the ends justify the means. So, we have censorship in scientific journals. We have censorship in social media. We have government-directed censorship which is unconstitutional where they’re collaborating with social media companies to censor people like me and Robert Malone and Peter McCullough and Alex Berenson and other people.

That’s what we have today. We have a government which believes that it can govern by censoring people who disagree with it. We’ve had some regimes in history where that has happened and it never ends well. It’s just like we did with autism-causing vaccines. When there was data showing that vaccines cause autism, what the CDC did is they directed the documents to be destroyed that linked the vaccines with autism so that there would be no paper trail. And that was exposed on a recording that was made.

And it was a legal recording but the person didn’t know, the CDC person didn’t know that he was being recorded. And so, he spoke honestly. He said, “Yeah, they required me to destroy any documents linking the vaccines and autism.” And so, you can bury this up. It’s like the VAERS data shows that these vaccines are outrageously dangerous. And people say, “Oh, that’s just over-reporting.” There’s always an excuse. There’s always a story.

Gardasil. When Gardasil came out, they did the investigation in Gardasil. Gardasil came out in 2016 … 2006, sorry. In 2009, there were so many complaints coming and the CDC was forced to do an investigation. So, they wrote a report saying, “Hey, even though there are three times as many VAERS reports for Gardasil versus all vaccines combined in history at the time.” And they said, “Oh, it’s just a normal vaccine. It was just over-reporting because Gardasil was getting just a lot of press because people were so upset about the side effects.”

Of course, people were so upset about the side effects and reporting so much because the drug was so dangerous. And that’s 2009. By 2011, 120 countries had approved Gardasil and Gardasil is still approved today. It has a safety profile that’s like … It’s not nearly as bad as the COVID vaccines but it’s a super dangerous drug. It should be taken off the market. The cost-benefit isn’t there.

And it’s true for all of these vaccines that are on the market. There is no cost-benefit analysis that is done where you compare the drug versus a true placebo and you look at all-cause mortality and morbidity across like a year or two-year or three-year timeframe. Never been done. Why? Because it would be negative and so they don’t do the studies. Look, if it was a safe vaccine, of course they would do the studies. It would prove to the world that this vaccine is super safe. Look, we have the data.

And what they do is they don’t do the study at all. They just focus on the benefits and they don’t try to assess what the downsides are. So, this has been done for vaccines since the beginning of time and since the beginning of … starting with polio vaccine. And it’s all documented in the “Turtles All The Way Down” vaccine safety book. It’s now in plain sight. It’s now accessible.

That book is a milestone. That “Turtles All The Way Down” book is a milestone because it’s a readable book. It explains it all in layman’s terms and anyone can read it and understand the kinds of games that they play in order for the drug companies to make money and in order to create this perception that the government is protecting you and the government is funding these vaccines and doing all this stuff to protect you when that’s not the case. If they really wanted to protect us, they would remove the liability protection for the vaccine manufacturers.

Mr. Jekielek:

Well, Steve Kirsch, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show.

Mr. Kirsch:

Thank you. It’s been a pleasure.

Mr. Jekielek:

Thank you all for joining Steve Kirsch and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I’m your host Jan Jekielek.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Follow EpochTV on social media:

Truth Social:


Read More
Related Videos