“Millions of Lives Saved” Rests on Fragile Modeling

Day 2 · 5:25:54 · Dr. Jessica Rose · Shawn Buckley

• 🧮 Rose, a mathematical modeler, says the ubiquitous “20 million deaths prevented” claim traces mainly to one modeling paper full of IFR and variant assumptions.
• ❌ Models only guide possible futures; they cannot prove shots saved millions “beyond a shadow of doubt,” and a single model claiming shots kill would be laughed out of the room.
• 🔓 Liability-free COVID products remove safety incentives; she frames ignored, undercounted, thinly compensated signals as incomplete public-health policy driven by markets, not care.

Critique of the central efficacy mantra and closing pharmacovigilance argument.

← Canadian Rows Inside Foreign VAERS and a Seven-Day Temporal Signal | Rose Closes: Say No Next Time; Inquiry Thanks →

Transcript

Dr. Jessica Rose · 5:25:54

I'm almost done. I have to address this, this millions of lives saved claim from the shots. This absolute— I can't swear, so I'll say boo hickey. And what most people won't, uh, won't have realized is that this, this thing, the statistic, this mantra that we hear is literally based on one peer-reviewed article. This article here. There are a couple others, but this is the one where everyone gets this, this quotable statistic of 20 million people were like deaths were prevented. Um, I'm a mathematical modeler. I take great pride in all of my training and, uh, not creating bias when you make your assumptions about your model, not interjecting anything when you go through your, your design or when you estimate your parameters. But it's, it's not an exact science.

Dr. Jessica Rose · 5:26:55

It never has been. All it can do is give you guidance to make potential predictions about future outcomes. That's all a model can do. This is a modeling study. Depending on what the IFR, the infection fatality rate, was, which differed depending on demographic, it differed depending on variant, it differ— there were so many variables here that could be different that would make the outcome of this model, the conclusion of the study, different. That is, it's, it's worthless. I mean, I'm sorry, authors, I don't mean to offend you, but It might not even be your fault that this became, you know, the mantra of the world to support these shots being safe and effective. Maybe you had nothing to do with it, but I really want to make sure that people know the next time somebody says, because the legacy media loves to revert to this, well, it's saved millions.

Shawn Buckley · 5:27:56

No, no.

Dr. Jessica Rose · 5:27:58

It didn't. There is nowhere that you can cite that proves that beyond a shadow of doubt. This is based on a modeling study. It's only an idea. And you know what? I'll take it one step further. If you actually wanted to prove to someone that the shots are killing people, if you tried to do that using one modeling paper, you would get laughed out of the door. I'm sorry, I'm getting a little bit testy, but like, Yeah, it's, um, all of this really annoys me because the data is here and the data is clear. None of this needed to happen, and it happened for a reason by people who knew. So pharmacovigilance, um, I will defend it. It's extremely important. It's kind of like a real-world phase 4 trial. So after your clinical trials, your 1, 2, 3s, which aren't supposed to be overlapped, which they were for Pfizer, and they aren't supposed to be rushed.

Dr. Jessica Rose · 5:28:59

You have to look at what's happening in a larger demographic of people when you administer the product. You have to monitor because maybe because your exclusion criteria list was so long, you're— you didn't represent a certain population like pregnant women in your trial. So you have to monitor this. COVID-19 quote-unquote vaccines are liability-free now. I think that was the target. So there's no impetus or motive to make them safe. That's a fact. They're not, they're not effective and they're not safe. And I could talk for another 3 hours about why they're not effective. And by the way, somebody should prompt me at the end of this to talk about the DNA contamination issue.

Shawn Buckley · 5:29:45

And actually, I'm going to ask that we stay away from that because we haven't had time to review what you want to say.

Dr. Jessica Rose · 5:29:51

No problem.

Shawn Buckley · 5:29:51

So we want to end, but probably we've got about 5 minutes left.

Dr. Jessica Rose · 5:29:55

I'm done.

Shawn Buckley · 5:29:55

So, okay.

Dr. Jessica Rose · 5:29:58

You guys can read this. I just want to end by saying pharmacovigilance signal that is undercounted or ignored and thinly compensated when recognized is incomplete public health policy. And that's what this has all been about. It's always been about, well, you have to do what's— you have to do it for your health, you have to do it for others, you have to do the greater good. None of this was about public health policy. This was about investments and stock markets and a wealth transfer that we've never seen the likes of, if you ask me. And the really hard part to swallow is all the casualties along the way. You know, there are some people who make claims that I don't really stand by, that they're, you know, the quote-unquote, they're trying to kill us. Maybe they are, but I mean, it doesn't matter because the casualty list is so high now, it might as well be that way.

Dr. Jessica Rose · 5:31:01

I really have to wonder where the care in healthcare has gone, if it was ever there, because I don't see it. And I clicked the wrong button. That's it for me.