Denis Rancourt
.jpg)
Tracy Beth Hoeg, MD, PhD (epidemiologist) wrote this criticism:
“A Critique Of The ‘17 Million Deaths Caused By The Vaccines’ Claim And The Current Data on Post-vaccine Deaths”. Substack, 18 January 2024. https://www.illusionconsensus.com/p/a-critique-of-the-17-million-deaths |
And here (22 January 2024): https://dailysceptic.org/2024/01/22/a-critique-of-the-17-million-deaths-caused-by-the-vaccines-claim/
About our article:
Rancourt DG, Baudin M, Hickey J, Mercier J. “COVID-19 vaccine-associated mortality in the Southern Hemisphere”. CORRELATION Research in the Public Interest, Report, 17 September 2023 (180 pages). https://correlation-canada.org/covid-19-vaccine-associated-mortality-in-the-Southern-Hemisphere/ |
And about our ICS4 conference presentation (18 November 2023): https://denisrancourt.ca/videos.php?id=112&name=2023_11_18_ics4_all_cause_mortality_woldwide_and_romania
This led to a public 3-hour debate recorded on 20 January 2024, released unedited behind a paywall on 22 January 2024. Tracy then on 23 January 2024 commented about the debate and reiterated her points here: https://tracybethhoegmdphd.substack.com/p/the-great-debate-dr-d-rancourt-vs
My initial response was posted on Substack (18 January 2024) as:
[https://www.illusionconsensus.com/p/a-critique-of-the-17-million-deaths/comment/47624321]
“I appreciate this detailed and objective critique of our work. I wish it could have been a recorded discussion, so that each statement can be clarified and responded to as we go.
Mostly this is a critique of the 17M value (its prima facie plausibility, and whether it can actually be valid for the entire world), and of the causality claim (without specifying the nature and method of the actual claim), not of the extensive underlying work: https://correlation-canada.org/covid-19-vaccine-associated-mortality-in-the-southern-hemisphere/
Virtually all the criticisms raised are addressed in the paper itself, and the limits of the 17M estimation are spelled out and shown by the graphical results.
Nonetheless, I plan to respond more fully, when time permits. I thank the authors for their preliminary reactions to our work.”
A more detailed written response follows. There is a conclusion at the end.
Tracy believes that her points invalidate our study. They do not.
We agree that linked vaccine-status-mortality national databases will impose strong constraints on causal interpretations of synchronicity between rapid vaccine rollouts and sudden all-cause mortality peaks. We look forward to those studies and encourage governments to release the data.
We believe that risk of harm from vaccination is highly dependent on age and health status, and that the clinical threshold not to inject patients with comorbidities varies significantly with both jurisdiction and time. This is an integral part of our interpretations.
Tracy does not believe that the risk of death per injection can be as large as we have calculated, and cites controlled studies. We believe that real-world vaccination campaigns can be far more reckless than what is reported in controlled studies, and that elderly and sick vulnerable groups can be disproportionately affected. Tracy does not say how large the actual real-world risk might be, only that our values are unreasonable/unjustified overestimates.
More importantly, excess mortalities, both prior to (depending on the country) and during vaccination, have been massive around the world, and the establishment explanations are far from close to reality, in my opinion. Our work has shown and continues to show that response and measures killed people, not any new spreading pathogen:
https://correlation-canada.org/research/
https://denisrancourt.ca/categories.php?id=1&name=covid
