top of page

Refuting Renz's "smoking gun" claim on vaccine deaths from Medicare data and whistleblower report.

Updated: Oct 4, 2021

A video that has been heavily circulated on social media this week is a presentation by attorney Thomas Renz claiming "We Got Them. Fact Check this!" Here is a retweet from Robert Malone:

He makes various claims in this talk, but the one I am going to address has to do with a claim about vaccine-induced deaths.

He presents a slide describing CMS data that based on its heading is suggesting that among Medicare recipients, 48,465 have died within 2 weeks of receiving the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, with the implication that this somehow proves that the vaccines are killing people.

He doesn't seem to acknowledge the concept of "background deaths", that there will be deaths AFTER vaccination that are not FROM vaccination.

In a recent blog post, I combined together USA population numbers, annual death rates, and vaccination rates by age groups to produce an estimate of the expected number of background deaths in the vaccinated subpopulation in a given year, month, week or day even if the vaccine caused none (all details and data in the linked blog post):

To interpret, the background death rate for a week in the vaccinated subpopulation is 49,309, meaning we expect this many to die in any given week. That means, even with a zero-death vaccine, we would expect roughly this many to die the week of vaccination.

To compute the relevant number for Renz's claims, we need to know the expected number of background deaths in two weeks for the Medicare population, which is >65yr.

Renz emphasizes that the 48,465 deaths are for a cohort that only represents "18%" of the population, from which some might naively infer that the total population numbers are >5x that. However, that ignores the fact that of course, the vast majority of deaths in the USA occur in the >65yr Medicare cohort. Medicare includes all USA residents >65yr plus 8.5 million <65yr with disabilities. Here I will just focus on the major part, the >65yr population.

Because we have background deaths split out by 5-year age groups we can compute the expected number of vaccinated Medicare cohort over a two week period. Adding up the age groups 65+, we get 38,691 weekly, which would be 77,382 for a two week period.

This means that even with a zero-death vaccine, we would expect >75k of Medicare recipients to die within two weeks of getting the shot.

Thus, it is not unexpected at all to see 48,465 deaths in this cohort within a given two week period, so this is hardly the bombshell the attorney seems to think it is.

Now there are caveats, that the vaccinated subpopulation might not be a representative sample of the entire >65yr population, and the timing of vaccine might not be random, e.g. if someone is deathly ill they would likely not be vaccinated on that time. This might decrease the expected background deaths to some degree.

But the numbers I computed also don't include the 8.5m Medicare recipients who are <65yr but have other disabilities -- those would add even more to the background deaths number. Even with these nuances, this suggests even with a zero-death vaccine, we should not be surprised w/ 45-50k deaths within 2wk of vaccination in this cohort.

This is not the bombshell he suggests, and the table implying that 45-50k in the Medicare cohort died within two weeks AFTER vaccination provides no evidence that any died FROM vaccination when considering background death rates.

Appendix (Oct 4, 2021) -- evaluating Jane Doe whistleblower report:

This claim comes from a lawsuit Renz is filing based on a lawsuit he is filing on behalf of "America's Frontline Doctors", a group that has been consistently opposing vaccination for SARS-CoV-2, that is supported by a "Jane Doe" whistleblower statement coming from a CMS Medicare employee.

The whistleblower report is available online, and the key text is screen shotted and given here:

She is making the following claims:

  1. There are 9,048 deaths reported in VAERs (total, not just within 3 days) as of July 9, 2021

  2. She looked at reported deaths in CMS Medicare data within 3 days of vaccination, and found the number of VAERs was only <=1/5 of this total, suggesting an underreporting rate (URR) of >=5x

  3. Based on an URR of >=5x, this suggests the true number of deaths AFTER vaccination is >=45k.

Given that we would expect ~50k deaths in the vaccinated USA cohort AFTER vaccination within 1 week of the shot and >200k deaths within 1 month AFTER the shot, these findings are unsurprising, and do not provide evidence of excess deaths caused by vaccination, i.e. that any of these deaths are FROM vaccination.

22,881 views89 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Explanation of "Healthy Vaccinee Effect" and Confounding

Healthy vaccinee effect (HVE) has become frequent topic of discussion these days. I am glad to see this, as I have been talking about this phenomenon for the past 2.5 years, and for a long time no one


Nir Tsabar
Nir Tsabar
Feb 17, 2022

Only Randomized Controlled Trials that are properly powered to find effect on All Cause Mortality (or at least all cause hospitalization ) can inform about the true net benefit (or harm) of these products. Failing to demand them is the original sin of the WHO and goverments.

Nir Tsabar
Nir Tsabar
Feb 19, 2022
Replying to

I appreciate the detailed answer. Cutting a long story short: If 200-400K of 'not the most sick' participants in a proper randomized controlled trial, cannot give an answer to whether the vaccine saves lives, then maybe the whole idea of mass (not to say coercive) vaccination of this population is not valid.

But let's look at some details:

A. Should the study population represent the entire population? Or maybe it should represent the population at significant risk? Since the beginning, mortality was mostly of very old and very vulnerable people. Such people should be recruited first, just like recruiting cancer patients to cancer-therapy trials, even if this is very inconvenient. Since this population have much higher death rate, the critical…


Now if Renz was an old has-been none of this sexual harassment business would have been injected into the equation.

Was waiting for the press to jump on that and it did! Anything to try and disqualify his mission.


The Renz paper doesn't prove anything and neither does your analysis. There simply is not enough reliable information available to the public to make any concrete statements. Your analysis assumes that deaths are uniformly distributed throughout the year, per week. This is simply not the case in the real world. There is going to be variability in the number of deaths per week and that variability is non constant through time. It can be driven by any number of unpredictable factors.

Also, we simply don't know what comorbidities any of these people had, what medications they were on, what treatments they were receiving, if any of them had COVID etc.

Jeffrey Morris
Jeffrey Morris
Oct 28, 2021
Replying to

Agreed. One of my major themes is that analysis of observational data is very tricky because of many unavoidable nuances some of which you have measured -- missing data including the potential of selection bias that is known or unknown, confounding subject and time-level factors that can affect the outcomes and the exposure (vaccination/not), and other factors too. It is very difficult. I am not meaning to say my analysis is definitive in estimating the number of vaccine-caused deaths -- not at all -- I believe it is impossible to determine such a number from VAERs which is my major point. But those making strong assertions based on these data that there are 100k's or even millions of deaths cause…


Jeff Morris, can you do the same analysis for Covid deaths... remove background deaths from deaths WITH Covid and publish those totals instead of the oft cited 700k deaths.

Also lets accept at face value that VAERS is no being used correctly and that

  1. its being overreported because people are more aware and

  2. hospitals are required to list AE and deaths in VAERS if the patient is known to have been vaccinated up to 28 days prior.

What is your expectation then regarding seasonal flu shots? Do you anticipate a 10X increase in VAERS reports and 10X in reported deaths (since its a reporting issue not a AE rate issue) since people are more likely to use it now, and…

Replying to

regardless of Renz’s outcome, he knows there are indeed problems with the Covid vaccine and is determined to prove it’s failures.


Prof Morris,

Could I suggest a subject for one of your future articles on matters of confusion?

Could you explain/define, from a statistical perspective, how the terms "very rare" and "rare" are quantified? I see these descriptors prepended to almost any discussion of adverse effects from the injections, even those that require the development of national (or international) treatment protocols (I do not understand why (inter)national treatment protocols are required for "very rare" adverse effects such as the novel VITT).

I also would like to know the probability of having any adverse effect (in other words looking at them collectively - rather than addressing each one separately).

Replying to

"is there any clinical sense that these small quantities would have a clinical effect"

Levels are indeed low, but it's possible the S1 & Spike are quickly removed from plasma and end up in endothelial or other cells.

Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page