Mar 3, 2022Liked by Chris Masterjohn, PhD

Thank you for this analysis - the most thorough and balanced review I've seen!

Have you analyzed the serious and adverse reactions between the placebo and vaccinated groups? I'd be curious to know if the results were statistically significant.

Expand full comment
Feb 27, 2022Liked by Chris Masterjohn, PhD

Taking my time going through these well researched and presented data Chris. Thank you! I will share the link to your substack. I had the J&J back in April of 2021. Thought it was the lesser of the 3 evils. No issues afterwards and am trying to avoid a booster to go to Italy this summer. I'm 54 fit, metabolically heathly and topped off on my supplements. No Covid infection that I know of and I work in the hospital (pathology)

Expand full comment

The trials were a complete sham and useless. The control groups were destroyed on purpose and the limits of length were also designed to eliminate major faults. The FDA and CDC were going to approve this mRNA substance (IT WAS NEVER A VACCINE!) because of the faked emergency and pressure from the DoD and HHS as well as WHO.

It is now more than obvious that covid was not a threat to 99.5% of the population. And only a severe threat to those with other medical difficulties. If you feel that mRNA substances are safe, go ahead and keep getting boosters and good luck.

Expand full comment

Interesting read, but I'm afraid the 21-17 of the FDA doc checks out in the raw data.


At your disposal if something is unclear !

Expand full comment

"Using this calculator, the difference in mortality rates is P=0.41 and is not statistically significant:"

Doesn't P=0.41 mean the odds that the null hypothesis is correct? In other words, the hypothesis that vaccines cause higher rates of all-cause mortality is to be slightly preferred?

If the p-value were 0.05, that would be the odds that the null hypothesis is correct--5%.

If anything, the p-value suggests that the study was underpowered to consider all-cause mortality. As pharma employs statisticians and is not new to the vaccine rodeo, pharma must have known what numbers of participants were needed to power the study sufficiently for all-cause mortality statistics to show a clear signal for either the null hypothesis or for the vaccine increases mortality hypothesis. And the FDA wasn't interested in pursuing this question, which ought to be concerning for everybody.

The phrase, "is not statistically significant," should be banned since it is misleading.

Expand full comment

Great article. Steve Kirsh linked it in an article today. Norman Fenton has also done some great analyses.

Expand full comment


You show that the extra deaths in the drug group were not significant. But isn't it the case that such a study is supposed to show that the drug is SAFER than the control? Not less safe at a not-significant level? The boot was surely on the wrong foot! THEY be proving safety; why do we have the burden of proving they were not safe?

Expand full comment

I looked at this a little bit differently.

The lady tasting tea, vaccines and the damage dogmatic doctors do


Expand full comment