Huh? -- Your chart shows the unvaccinated dying at much greater rates than any of the vaccinated. So you'd be better off getting Moderna than staying unvaccinated, even if Moderna is harder on you than Pfizer. Now that's not what I've been seeing for years while thanking my lucky stars for staying unvaccinated. Unless that top black line with the huge "death spike" is something other than "unvaccinated"?
The unvaccinated spike in mid 2021 in the chart may be in part a reflection of the massive amount of people who got jabbed during the first rollout & died but were <2 weeks post jab & therefore classed as unvaccinated. The rationale from the authorities being it took at least 2 weeks for people once jabbed to be "protected".
I believe it’s the “healthy user bias” that you are seeing. People on their death bed did not take the vaccines. The mortality being greater in the unvaccinated during times of no Covid deaths shows this healthy user bias because the vaccines do not boost good health in general. They can’t. They were only created to prevent Covid severity, which can’t happen if there is no Covid.
It is called the "cheap trick". Each time you received a vaccine dose you were counted for 14 days as unvaccinated. So 90% of the vaccine deaths, car accidents, etc. blow up the deaths in the unvaccinated group and make the vaccinated group appear to have lower all-cause mortality. If Pfizer was administered 4x more than Moderna, it would also push their all-cause mortality curve further down than the other... this is probably what is going on here. As you can see the curves are ordered exactly by the percentages they were administered. Watch Norman Fenton's Youtube videos to understand how this works.
Like I said before in a comment, all the data is just FUBAR. Using it for anything is basically like reading tea leaves at this point.
Yes, there are definitely multiple ways to confuse the public with statistics. One of them is the "healthy user bias" that I mentioned. You mention the statistical tricks that they played for the covid injections, which was a unique trick never seen before. There were others as well, like only counting people as "vaccinated" if they received the vaccine at the hospital that was reporting the statistics. I'm sure there were a lot of other ways to hide the true data.
The only thing that we really needed to know was that when they ran the initial "trials" or demonstrations, more people died in the injected group than in the "placebo" group. The fact that this did not shut down the deployment amongst the population shows intent to harm. I can not think of any other reason that they would deploy an injection that lead to higher ACM in the test group than intent to harm.
Hi Steve, Ontario Public Health data shows serious adverse events reported per 100,000 doses by manufacturer. Pfizer 3.0 per 100,000 doses, Moderna 4.1 per 100,000 doses. Sending to you thinking this may be data tracked by manufacturer that you may have been looking for?
I wanted to check if the ratio was similar if you include all reports and not just serious reports, but it was about 75.8 reports per 100,000 doses for Moderna and 58.1 for Pfizer, so the ratio did in fact remain similar.
In a Czech batch safety dataset, the rate of serious adverse event reports per doses shipped was higher for Pfizer than Moderna, even though the rate of all reports per doses shipped was higher for Moderna than Pfizer: sars2.net/czech3.html#Batch_study_by_authors_from_Palack_University. But when I used doses administered instead of doses shipped as the denominator, then the ratio of serious adverse event reports per dose also became higher for Moderna than Pfizer. The percentage of doses administered out of doses shipped was about 55% for Pfizer and 43% for Moderna, so if you use doses shipped instead of doses administered as the denominator, it gives an advantage to Moderna.
However the Canadian data seems to use doses administered instead of doses shipped as the denominator, which is one advantage compared to studies like Schmeling's Danish study which uses doses shipped as the denominator. But I wish the Canadian data was also normalized for age or it showed the number of adverse event reports for each age group, because adverse event reports are more common in older age groups. And for example in the US VAERS reports that are not missing an age, the average age is about 47.8 for Pfizer and 53.6 for Moderna, which might partially explain why Moderna has a higher rate of reports per dose (https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/datasets.html):
Steve, I am confused as to your answer. As per Sharon McKinney's question , the spike of the unvaccinated surely shows that this was a worse option? Clearly I and Sharon are missing something; can you explain?
Yeah the black line shows deaths from all causes. It's based on the record-level data which doesn't have information about the cause of death. I haven't even found data for COVID deaths by vaccine brand.
It might be that the kind of people who were less likely to die of COVID were more likely to get vaccinated, so it might partially explain why the black line has such a huge spike during the COVID wave in November to December 2021. For example Uncle John Returns found that in the regions of England that later had the lowest percentage of vaccinated people, there was already higher COVID ASMR in 2020 before vaccination started: https://x.com/UncleJo46902375/status/1744742449036337365.
But during the COVID wave in November to December 2021, the increase in ASMR is also lowest for Moderna, slightly higher for Pfizer, and even higher for AstraZeneca and Janssen. During most months Moderna has higher ASMR than AstraZeneca, but in November and December 2021 the line for AstraZeneca rises clearly above Moderna. So it might indicate that Moderna had higher efficacy in preventing COVID deaths than AstraZeneca.
In my plot there's large differences in the background ASMR between vaccine types that remain in place even in late 2022, but I think the differences in the background ASMR are mostly explained by confounders. But the thing you should focus on is the difference between the background ASMR and ASMR during COVID waves. I now made another version of the plot which shows the ASMR as percentage of the total ASMR in the second half of 2022: sars2.net/czech2.html#ASMR_by_month_and_vaccine_type. So now the lines in my new plot are normalized relative to the background ASMR, so it emphasizes how Moderna had almost no increase in ASMR during the COVID wave in the last two months of 2021.
I hope your eye is improving. If you want some distant healing then let us know as I know some very competent reiki healers who are prepared to help. And there is some evidence which suggests it works is some instances.
I'm still struggling with the line for "unvaccinated".
Are you 100% sure that you did not got a false leak? With manipulated data?
This "unvaccinated" line is so desastrous and completely anti-intuitive, except for those who dislike thinking for themselves and therefore believe in all the nasty narratives of the vaxers, that you should have given much more answers on this. Or even have left it out, because the data are most likely totally unrelaible.
I noted that HenJin cited in one of his comments below ONS data and also a bit of Fentons/Neils work. Sufficient? Not for me.
I did and do not believe in the ONS data: I myself acknowledged Fenton on some falsified data until March 2020; he agreed and took it. Later ONS closed this issue by starting their counting with 1 April 2020. Even thereafter they used false population data, thus, manipulating the denominator. (link in another post belwo).
So, why should we have more confidence in the Czech data in this central aspect?
In contrast to all other mortality data we have, the unvaccinated appear to perform even worse in 2022.
And it's Fenton and Neil who used false population data and not ONS, because when they calculated the mortality rate for unvaccinated people, they added unlinked people to the denominator for unvaccinated population size, but they didn't add deaths in unlinked people to the numerator for unvaccinated deaths: https://x.com/UncleJo46902375/status/1813583698459308056. The same trick has also been used by Joel Smalley and USMortality.
Barry Young's NZ data is missing unvaccinated people and about half of vaccinated people. But the half of vaccinated people who are included in his dataset have lower ASMR than the general NZ population, so it probably means that unvaccinated people have higher ASMR than vaccinated people (unless the vaccinated people who are included in Barry's dataset are not representative of all vaccinated people and the missing half of vaccinated people have much higher ASMR): sars2.net/moar.html#Excess_ASMR_compared_to_reported_mortality_data_in_New_Zealand.
Perfect support for my position and against yours.
Look at Fig. 3.1.1. You clearly see the peak C19 deaths in Week 7 for the line „zonder“ (= without) latency time. You also see a tiny surplus in Week 47 to 49.
You may argue: Because they were not yet protected. However, it is antiintuitive to get such sharp peaks. And you could never explain the December surplus, as people were told to be protected. We know from the whole C19 crisis that misclassification on death certificates were very common, simply because encouraged by the WHO.
In the set without carehomes (Fig 3.1.2) the peak is even brighter.
Off course, you should also look at nonC19-mortality in Fig 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. In principle the same. Initially increased mortality.
Essential point: The dutch statistician did not want to show us accumulated data. Most likely, as such figures would have clarified that the vaccinated never catch-up the initial disadvatange. The essential killing argument against the vaccines.
Further below the Dutch statisticians showed figures comparing „vacinated“ vs. „unvaccinated“, however, using the cheap trick, i.e. counting events in the initial phase after vaccination to the unvaccinated. The same cheap trick you used in with the Czech data.
The Czech data are totally unrealiable.
Apart from this, the interpretation of VAERS data (that Moderna would cause more deaths) is totally wrong.
-Your article fails to define 'HVR (short term and long term)' meaning it's hard to fully evaluate your short argument for why we SHOULDN'T accept the notion that vaccinations were protective.
- your comment: "That’s part of the problem. If you get vaccinated, they know you exist. If you’re unvaccinated, they don’t know you exist until you die" : well, the data is not very useful if they are not counting 100% of the population from the beginning, that is, the 'unvaccinated' and the 'vaccinated' amount to 100% of the population. The group labeled 'unvaccinated' can't be 'either unvaccinated or we don't know'. It is also not clear if only certain age groups are represented in these tables. Adding to the complication is that, at least here in Germany, vaccines were basically only available to 'the old, sick, vulnerable, and those who HAVE to work to keep the system going' in early to mid 2021, meaning they would have higher mortality rates to begin with (most work to do under the worst conditions including more exposure to the infected!).
The notion that 100mcg of (moderna) vaccine had a worse outcome than 30mcg of pfizer vaccine is very plausible, doesn't say that the moderna vaccine was inherently more dangerous, only that the dose they were using was too high. Also bad of course!! I personally did not get the moderna vaccine after reading list of and percentage of side effects. I reluctantly took the biontec/pfizer age 53 as a healthy male for pragmatic reasons related to 'not being an outcast' not believing it would improve my health outcome.
My view is that the vaccines served their function of 'getting people back to work' because in Germany people were forced to accept the vaccine or face undue restrictions on their lives and ability to work. The wealthy could ride the whole thing out and also not get vaccinated and do well because they didn't have to work at all; everyone else did the dirty work. That's always true.
Mr. Kirsch, thank you for sharing this important information! May I beg you to rewrite it in plain English? We non-scientists don't know what the vertical axis of your chart stands for. Is it the total population of the Czech Republic? We don't automatically know what your acronyms stand for: MRR, MR, etc. Please remember that plain, ordinary folks are only capable of absorbing this if we understand your language. Blessings.
Sometimes simpler data sets make clear statements. Here is BC, Canada data provided by Office of BC Seniors Advocate. It clearly shows no risk from Covid-19 in 2020 and increased all-cause mortality in 2021 and 2022. Thus vaccine policy could not have worked.
Folks it turns out even seniors were not at risk in 2020, not even frail long term care residents. Proof from the BC government's own Office of BC Senior's Advocate presented below.
Did we only know in hindsight? No.
The BC Seniors Advocate was asked in an interview in the Vancouver Sun on Dec26 2020 if she noticed an increase in the death rate overall in during 2020 in long term care homes. She said no. Well if they were not at any more risk than historical death trends then nobody was.
Here is the data the Senior's Advocate gathered from their own internal sources and Statistics Canada. Below is the the all-cause mortality data for the two most at risk groups:
1) The 1,100,000 seniors 65 and over in BC.
2) The 40,000 residents of long term care in BC
Here is the all cause mortality rate per 10,000 for seniors 65 and over:
2018: 331 per 10,000
2019: 326
2020: 331 (no increase in unvaccinated seniors in the "pandemic")
2021: 340 (increase after first 2-doses)
2022: 343 (increase again after the booster)
Here is the all-cause mortality rate per 10,000 from for the fiscal years ended March 31:
2018/2019: 1,800
2019/2020: : 1,780
2020/2021: 1,750 (pandemic year prior to vaccines)
2021/2022: 1,910 (pandemic, with first two doses of vax)
These results are the opposite of predicted, no increase in all-cause mortality rate before vaccines and and increase rate after vaccines for both cohorts above. This shows there was no reason to give experimental emergency use authorized products to these seniors and if seniors didn't need it nor did working age people or children.
The was reported officially in the BC Seniors Advocate report called:
Monitoring Seniors Services 2023 Report (released March 2024)
The point of my data is more for broad public policy reasons. It clearly shows at the population level the vaccine policies didn't work or need much further research to prove they did as they need to explain that something other than the vaccine cause the rise in both all-cause mortality and Covid-19 deaths. This data is relatively meaningless at the individual level as the risks are so small relative to other risks in society.
Potential increase in all-cause mortality for each age group based on B.C. data is as follows:
Long term care residents: 1 per 100
Seniors in general over 65: 1 per 1,000
Younger than 65 : 1 per 10,000
The problem for the average observer is that in BC at least 17 or 18 people die each year in a long term care home with 100 residents so if 1 more on average dies the people running the singe institution can't really notice it. Only the people who see the whole data set for all 40,000 long term care residents (like the BC Seniors Advocate in BC did)
In BC the All Cause Mortality is enhanced by the fentanyl OD's, less popular in nursing homes than outside, but used by Bonnie and Adrian to deflect study of the vaxx cull.
Indeed, all respiratory disease is a risk, especially to the elderly. The way to improve your odds is to build your immune system through proven natural ways. A needle in the arm is the least likely method to work especially for seniors who have weak immune system. The governments own data admits this. They actually say the Covid-19 vaccine has a lower probability of working well for these seniors and recommend getting it even more often (like every 2-3 months).
Building the immune system won't necessarily help. Vaccines do that, but misdirect it. I'm not one of the lucky 0.26% unvaccinated. They cause allergies and autoimmunities such as asthma. Bronchitis from original covid strain nearly killed me, and asthma contributed to that. Why do you think immunosuppressive corticosteroids reduce covid mortality? (NSAIDs aren't so good as they suppress interferon.) But if you think allergies and autoimmunities are wonderful...
There were some doctors that treated thousands of people with various protocols including the Zelensky protocol and had essentially no deaths. They used things like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine -- not necessarily those at all but various other remedies. These were published at the time but the authorities ignored them. No time machine is needed.
While a lot of things were said at the time, ivermectin, chloroquine (hydroxychloroquine came to the fore later), and even vitamin C, though not zinc, became unavailable. Just ask my pharmacist brother in law what the pharmaceutical miscreants instructed about the first 3! (He filled the prescriptions, but his 3 employee pharmacists, 1 of which was his own son, refused to do so. And good luck getting such prescriptions. Horse paste was also in short supply. Rumor has it, the gain of function virus included malaria sequences as a secret remedy for the Illuminati-favored people who took ill.)
I'm so glad you're as facile as Yehuda Berg at changing the past. Will you bring back those who died? Some did, despite misleading statistical comparisons to severe flu years, you know.
Yes and why were Ivermectin et cetera hard to find? It was pressure from the authorities. If there had been a remedy for Covid then the vaccines could not have been justified and the drug companies would have lost huge profits. That could not be allowed. Believe me I know about some who had severe Covid and it was not a joke at all. But the great majority could have been saved and their deaths can be charged to the opposition of the authorities. There are many many in this movement who understand all I am saying and maybe you can have a dialogue with them.
Here is the simplest data set ever that shows vaccine didn't work. Focus on one narrow age group of seniors. This show no increase in risk to this senior cohort in 2020 but increase in all-cause mortality in 2021 and 2022. Also increase in Covid-19 specific deaths in 2022 vs 2020 so vaccine program raised both Covid-19 deaths and all-cause mortality.
Mortality rates, by age group, annual data
Table: 13-10-0710-01
Release date: 2023-11-27
For BC take one age group as an example:
Age 65-69 all-cause mortality normalized rate per 1,000
2018: 9.9
2019: 9.9
2020: 9.9 (no change in biggest pandemic said to affect seniors)
2021: 11.2 (double vax causes death rate increase)
2022: 10.9 (after booster death rate stays 10% above baseline)
Next check this table from stats Canada
Leading causes of death, total population (age standardization using 2011 population)
Table: 13-10-0801-01
Release date: 2023-11-27
This shows even Covid-19 deaths remained higher in 2022 than 2020. In fact more than double the 2020 numbers.
Below are the actual number of deaths by year from BC:
Statistics Canada also offers and different approach to showing impact on health during Covid-19 era.
tatistics Canada explains how much the health of Canadian's was destroyed by public health officials.
Statistics Canada reports annually on the number of people who feel "fair to poor" vs "good to excellent". This data shows roughly 1.1 million more people were feeling in worse health in 2022 after this trend was stable for years including in 2020. It wasn't until the vaccine policy was rolled out that people really began to feel unwell. Why? Were is the official study explaining all this?
Summary stats below:
Number of people in Canada feeling "Fair to poor":
(in millions)
2017: 3.4
2018: 3.4
2019: 3.4
2020: 3.4
2021: 3.7
2022: 4.5
BC’s share is about 220,000 or about 5% of the total BC population feeling worse. We don’t have 100% prove it was the vax but it was certainly due to the combined effects of all the government policies in aggregate.
Thank you for this tremendously important work, and for reporting on it.
This I wanted to underline:
"Also, this is precisely why this method (comparing brands) is so valuable: because the ONLY systemic difference between the cohorts who opted for vaccination is the brand they got. But there are huge differences between vaxxed and unvaxxed that most all researchers do not appreciate and cannot adjust for. This is why studies claim the COVID vaccines save lives when they are actually increasing all-cause mortality."
I wonder how the leaders feel about this - is there ANY remorse, or sorrow or guilt for what they have done? Mass murder is what they have done, sanctioned and approved following UN/WEF orders?
They should all be charged with crimes against humanity - and face the most serious penalty.
Same goes in all countries!
I’m sorry - ‘I was only following orders’ will not cut it! The Nazis tried that - and failed!
They aren’t just following WEF orders. Many previous congresses and administrations passed legislation for big pharma to do what it’s doing going back many decades. When they gave big pharma immunity from lawsuits they asked why they just couldn’t make vaccines safe and were told it was impossible. They voted for immunity anyway. Now many take money from big pharma so they keeping their mouth s shut.
I added info on the unvaxxed line for those who didn't read the original posts.
Huh? -- Your chart shows the unvaccinated dying at much greater rates than any of the vaccinated. So you'd be better off getting Moderna than staying unvaccinated, even if Moderna is harder on you than Pfizer. Now that's not what I've been seeing for years while thanking my lucky stars for staying unvaccinated. Unless that top black line with the huge "death spike" is something other than "unvaccinated"?
The unvaccinated spike in mid 2021 in the chart may be in part a reflection of the massive amount of people who got jabbed during the first rollout & died but were <2 weeks post jab & therefore classed as unvaccinated. The rationale from the authorities being it took at least 2 weeks for people once jabbed to be "protected".
I added this to my article. This was covered in the earlier articles as well.
Selection bias and other factors create the illusion you cut your death rate in half. No such thing is happening.
THIS IS WHY PEOPLE WHO USE UNVACCINATED AS A COMPARATOR ARE MISLED.
Is the problem, that unvaccinated are not in the database unless they die?
That could explain the bias.
If they were there, then one could make easy comparison with unvaccinated/vaccinated at random selection based on birth year.
Did not study the data to know this.
That’s part of the problem. If you get vaccinated, they know you exist. If you’re unvaccinated, they don’t know you exist until you die.
A-ha! got it. Didn't make sense the unvaxed were dying at twice the rate of the vaxed. So... lying with statistics once again.
I believe it’s the “healthy user bias” that you are seeing. People on their death bed did not take the vaccines. The mortality being greater in the unvaccinated during times of no Covid deaths shows this healthy user bias because the vaccines do not boost good health in general. They can’t. They were only created to prevent Covid severity, which can’t happen if there is no Covid.
It is called the "cheap trick". Each time you received a vaccine dose you were counted for 14 days as unvaccinated. So 90% of the vaccine deaths, car accidents, etc. blow up the deaths in the unvaccinated group and make the vaccinated group appear to have lower all-cause mortality. If Pfizer was administered 4x more than Moderna, it would also push their all-cause mortality curve further down than the other... this is probably what is going on here. As you can see the curves are ordered exactly by the percentages they were administered. Watch Norman Fenton's Youtube videos to understand how this works.
Like I said before in a comment, all the data is just FUBAR. Using it for anything is basically like reading tea leaves at this point.
Yes, there are definitely multiple ways to confuse the public with statistics. One of them is the "healthy user bias" that I mentioned. You mention the statistical tricks that they played for the covid injections, which was a unique trick never seen before. There were others as well, like only counting people as "vaccinated" if they received the vaccine at the hospital that was reporting the statistics. I'm sure there were a lot of other ways to hide the true data.
The only thing that we really needed to know was that when they ran the initial "trials" or demonstrations, more people died in the injected group than in the "placebo" group. The fact that this did not shut down the deployment amongst the population shows intent to harm. I can not think of any other reason that they would deploy an injection that lead to higher ACM in the test group than intent to harm.
Scientists warn of risks of Blood Transfusions from COVID-19 Vaccinated people
https://expose-news.com/2024/09/16/scientists-warn-risks-blood-transfusions-from-covid-vaccinated/
Hi Steve, Ontario Public Health data shows serious adverse events reported per 100,000 doses by manufacturer. Pfizer 3.0 per 100,000 doses, Moderna 4.1 per 100,000 doses. Sending to you thinking this may be data tracked by manufacturer that you may have been looking for?
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-aefi-report.pdf?sc_lang=en
I wanted to check if the ratio was similar if you include all reports and not just serious reports, but it was about 75.8 reports per 100,000 doses for Moderna and 58.1 for Pfizer, so the ratio did in fact remain similar.
In a Czech batch safety dataset, the rate of serious adverse event reports per doses shipped was higher for Pfizer than Moderna, even though the rate of all reports per doses shipped was higher for Moderna than Pfizer: sars2.net/czech3.html#Batch_study_by_authors_from_Palack_University. But when I used doses administered instead of doses shipped as the denominator, then the ratio of serious adverse event reports per dose also became higher for Moderna than Pfizer. The percentage of doses administered out of doses shipped was about 55% for Pfizer and 43% for Moderna, so if you use doses shipped instead of doses administered as the denominator, it gives an advantage to Moderna.
However the Canadian data seems to use doses administered instead of doses shipped as the denominator, which is one advantage compared to studies like Schmeling's Danish study which uses doses shipped as the denominator. But I wish the Canadian data was also normalized for age or it showed the number of adverse event reports for each age group, because adverse event reports are more common in older age groups. And for example in the US VAERS reports that are not missing an age, the average age is about 47.8 for Pfizer and 53.6 for Moderna, which might partially explain why Moderna has a higher rate of reports per dose (https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/datasets.html):
> va=do.call(rbind,lapply(2020:2024,\(i)fread(paste0(i,"VAERSDATA.csv"))))
> va=merge(va,do.call(rbind,lapply(2020:2024,\(i)fread(paste0(i,"VAERSVAX.csv")))))
> a=va[VAX_TYPE=="COVID19",.(reports=.N),.(age=AGE_YRS,type=VAX_MANU)]
> a[,.(age=weighted.mean(age,reports,na.rm=T),N=sum(reports)),type][order(-N)]|>print(r=F)
type age N
PFIZER\\BIONTECH 47.77687 481402
MODERNA 53.60780 469655
JANSSEN 46.48158 73454
UNKNOWN MANUFACTURER 53.38512 7363
NOVAVAX 48.86575 492
Steve, I am confused as to your answer. As per Sharon McKinney's question , the spike of the unvaccinated surely shows that this was a worse option? Clearly I and Sharon are missing something; can you explain?
no. the benefit of vaccination happen BEFORE you get the shot, not after.
How can the benefit of a vaccination happen before rather than after it is taken?
Does your black line in the graph represent all deaths(not just covid)?
Yeah the black line shows deaths from all causes. It's based on the record-level data which doesn't have information about the cause of death. I haven't even found data for COVID deaths by vaccine brand.
It might be that the kind of people who were less likely to die of COVID were more likely to get vaccinated, so it might partially explain why the black line has such a huge spike during the COVID wave in November to December 2021. For example Uncle John Returns found that in the regions of England that later had the lowest percentage of vaccinated people, there was already higher COVID ASMR in 2020 before vaccination started: https://x.com/UncleJo46902375/status/1744742449036337365.
But during the COVID wave in November to December 2021, the increase in ASMR is also lowest for Moderna, slightly higher for Pfizer, and even higher for AstraZeneca and Janssen. During most months Moderna has higher ASMR than AstraZeneca, but in November and December 2021 the line for AstraZeneca rises clearly above Moderna. So it might indicate that Moderna had higher efficacy in preventing COVID deaths than AstraZeneca.
In my plot there's large differences in the background ASMR between vaccine types that remain in place even in late 2022, but I think the differences in the background ASMR are mostly explained by confounders. But the thing you should focus on is the difference between the background ASMR and ASMR during COVID waves. I now made another version of the plot which shows the ASMR as percentage of the total ASMR in the second half of 2022: sars2.net/czech2.html#ASMR_by_month_and_vaccine_type. So now the lines in my new plot are normalized relative to the background ASMR, so it emphasizes how Moderna had almost no increase in ASMR during the COVID wave in the last two months of 2021.
Moderna NEVER made a shot before. Plus this...https://archive.org/details/the-fauci-covid-19-dossier_202109
I hope your eye is improving. If you want some distant healing then let us know as I know some very competent reiki healers who are prepared to help. And there is some evidence which suggests it works is some instances.
I'm still struggling with the line for "unvaccinated".
Are you 100% sure that you did not got a false leak? With manipulated data?
This "unvaccinated" line is so desastrous and completely anti-intuitive, except for those who dislike thinking for themselves and therefore believe in all the nasty narratives of the vaxers, that you should have given much more answers on this. Or even have left it out, because the data are most likely totally unrelaible.
I noted that HenJin cited in one of his comments below ONS data and also a bit of Fentons/Neils work. Sufficient? Not for me.
I did and do not believe in the ONS data: I myself acknowledged Fenton on some falsified data until March 2020; he agreed and took it. Later ONS closed this issue by starting their counting with 1 April 2020. Even thereafter they used false population data, thus, manipulating the denominator. (link in another post belwo).
So, why should we have more confidence in the Czech data in this central aspect?
In contrast to all other mortality data we have, the unvaccinated appear to perform even worse in 2022.
Do you really believe this?
And it's Fenton and Neil who used false population data and not ONS, because when they calculated the mortality rate for unvaccinated people, they added unlinked people to the denominator for unvaccinated population size, but they didn't add deaths in unlinked people to the numerator for unvaccinated deaths: https://x.com/UncleJo46902375/status/1813583698459308056. The same trick has also been used by Joel Smalley and USMortality.
In the Dutch CBS data unvaccinated people also have much higher ASMR than vaccinated people: https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/longread/rapportages/2024/covid-vaccinatiestatus-en-sterfte/3-resultaten.
Barry Young's NZ data is missing unvaccinated people and about half of vaccinated people. But the half of vaccinated people who are included in his dataset have lower ASMR than the general NZ population, so it probably means that unvaccinated people have higher ASMR than vaccinated people (unless the vaccinated people who are included in Barry's dataset are not representative of all vaccinated people and the missing half of vaccinated people have much higher ASMR): sars2.net/moar.html#Excess_ASMR_compared_to_reported_mortality_data_in_New_Zealand.
And in this paper which looked at subsets of Czech record-level data released by two insurance companies, unvaccinated people had much higher CMR than vaccinated people within age groups: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971224000468.
CSV files published by the Czech MoH also show that unvaccinated people had a much higher rate of hospitalizations for COVID than vaccinated people: sars2.net/czech3.html#Hospitalizations_by_age_group_and_vaccination_status. And most excess deaths in 2021 to 2022 seem to have been caused by COVID, because I got about 25% excess deaths in 2021 when I included COVID, but it dropped down to only about 3% when I excluded deaths where underlying cause was listed as COVID: sars2.net/czech3.html#Yearly_deaths_in_the_Czech_Republic_by_underlying_cause_of_death.
Thank you for reminding me to the Dutch data.
https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/longread/rapportages/2024/covid-vaccinatiestatus-en-sterfte/3-resultaten.
Perfect support for my position and against yours.
Look at Fig. 3.1.1. You clearly see the peak C19 deaths in Week 7 for the line „zonder“ (= without) latency time. You also see a tiny surplus in Week 47 to 49.
You may argue: Because they were not yet protected. However, it is antiintuitive to get such sharp peaks. And you could never explain the December surplus, as people were told to be protected. We know from the whole C19 crisis that misclassification on death certificates were very common, simply because encouraged by the WHO.
In the set without carehomes (Fig 3.1.2) the peak is even brighter.
Off course, you should also look at nonC19-mortality in Fig 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. In principle the same. Initially increased mortality.
Essential point: The dutch statistician did not want to show us accumulated data. Most likely, as such figures would have clarified that the vaccinated never catch-up the initial disadvatange. The essential killing argument against the vaccines.
Further below the Dutch statisticians showed figures comparing „vacinated“ vs. „unvaccinated“, however, using the cheap trick, i.e. counting events in the initial phase after vaccination to the unvaccinated. The same cheap trick you used in with the Czech data.
The Czech data are totally unrealiable.
Apart from this, the interpretation of VAERS data (that Moderna would cause more deaths) is totally wrong.
https://tkp.at/2024/08/06/spikevax-gefaehrlicher-als-comirnaty-steve-kirsch-greift-daneben/comment-page-1/#comment-168672
It appears that you are a vaxer.
-Your article fails to define 'HVR (short term and long term)' meaning it's hard to fully evaluate your short argument for why we SHOULDN'T accept the notion that vaccinations were protective.
- your comment: "That’s part of the problem. If you get vaccinated, they know you exist. If you’re unvaccinated, they don’t know you exist until you die" : well, the data is not very useful if they are not counting 100% of the population from the beginning, that is, the 'unvaccinated' and the 'vaccinated' amount to 100% of the population. The group labeled 'unvaccinated' can't be 'either unvaccinated or we don't know'. It is also not clear if only certain age groups are represented in these tables. Adding to the complication is that, at least here in Germany, vaccines were basically only available to 'the old, sick, vulnerable, and those who HAVE to work to keep the system going' in early to mid 2021, meaning they would have higher mortality rates to begin with (most work to do under the worst conditions including more exposure to the infected!).
The notion that 100mcg of (moderna) vaccine had a worse outcome than 30mcg of pfizer vaccine is very plausible, doesn't say that the moderna vaccine was inherently more dangerous, only that the dose they were using was too high. Also bad of course!! I personally did not get the moderna vaccine after reading list of and percentage of side effects. I reluctantly took the biontec/pfizer age 53 as a healthy male for pragmatic reasons related to 'not being an outcast' not believing it would improve my health outcome.
My view is that the vaccines served their function of 'getting people back to work' because in Germany people were forced to accept the vaccine or face undue restrictions on their lives and ability to work. The wealthy could ride the whole thing out and also not get vaccinated and do well because they didn't have to work at all; everyone else did the dirty work. That's always true.
How is your eye? Were you able to get helpful information? Praying for you to find a solution for complete recovery!!
Mr. Kirsch, thank you for sharing this important information! May I beg you to rewrite it in plain English? We non-scientists don't know what the vertical axis of your chart stands for. Is it the total population of the Czech Republic? We don't automatically know what your acronyms stand for: MRR, MR, etc. Please remember that plain, ordinary folks are only capable of absorbing this if we understand your language. Blessings.
In the first plot in this post which shows ASMR, the y-axis shows deaths per 100,000 person-years.
MR is mortality rate which means deaths divided by population size, and it's synonymous with CMR or crude mortality rate.
MRR is Kirsch's term for "mortality rate ratio" which means the Pfizer mortality rate divided by the Moderna mortality rate.
Sometimes simpler data sets make clear statements. Here is BC, Canada data provided by Office of BC Seniors Advocate. It clearly shows no risk from Covid-19 in 2020 and increased all-cause mortality in 2021 and 2022. Thus vaccine policy could not have worked.
Folks it turns out even seniors were not at risk in 2020, not even frail long term care residents. Proof from the BC government's own Office of BC Senior's Advocate presented below.
Did we only know in hindsight? No.
The BC Seniors Advocate was asked in an interview in the Vancouver Sun on Dec26 2020 if she noticed an increase in the death rate overall in during 2020 in long term care homes. She said no. Well if they were not at any more risk than historical death trends then nobody was.
Here is the data the Senior's Advocate gathered from their own internal sources and Statistics Canada. Below is the the all-cause mortality data for the two most at risk groups:
1) The 1,100,000 seniors 65 and over in BC.
2) The 40,000 residents of long term care in BC
Here is the all cause mortality rate per 10,000 for seniors 65 and over:
2018: 331 per 10,000
2019: 326
2020: 331 (no increase in unvaccinated seniors in the "pandemic")
2021: 340 (increase after first 2-doses)
2022: 343 (increase again after the booster)
Here is the all-cause mortality rate per 10,000 from for the fiscal years ended March 31:
2018/2019: 1,800
2019/2020: : 1,780
2020/2021: 1,750 (pandemic year prior to vaccines)
2021/2022: 1,910 (pandemic, with first two doses of vax)
These results are the opposite of predicted, no increase in all-cause mortality rate before vaccines and and increase rate after vaccines for both cohorts above. This shows there was no reason to give experimental emergency use authorized products to these seniors and if seniors didn't need it nor did working age people or children.
The was reported officially in the BC Seniors Advocate report called:
Monitoring Seniors Services 2023 Report (released March 2024)
Covid-19 clearly showed risk in 2020. Quit calling me a liar! One can die of pneumonia (from ordinary severe influenza) or choking.
Covid-19 may have posed no higher risks than some flues, but it posed risk. Could have killed me.
The point of my data is more for broad public policy reasons. It clearly shows at the population level the vaccine policies didn't work or need much further research to prove they did as they need to explain that something other than the vaccine cause the rise in both all-cause mortality and Covid-19 deaths. This data is relatively meaningless at the individual level as the risks are so small relative to other risks in society.
Potential increase in all-cause mortality for each age group based on B.C. data is as follows:
Long term care residents: 1 per 100
Seniors in general over 65: 1 per 1,000
Younger than 65 : 1 per 10,000
The problem for the average observer is that in BC at least 17 or 18 people die each year in a long term care home with 100 residents so if 1 more on average dies the people running the singe institution can't really notice it. Only the people who see the whole data set for all 40,000 long term care residents (like the BC Seniors Advocate in BC did)
In BC the All Cause Mortality is enhanced by the fentanyl OD's, less popular in nursing homes than outside, but used by Bonnie and Adrian to deflect study of the vaxx cull.
That is why I only used the older age groups which are not affected that much by the drug o/d deaths.
Indeed, all respiratory disease is a risk, especially to the elderly. The way to improve your odds is to build your immune system through proven natural ways. A needle in the arm is the least likely method to work especially for seniors who have weak immune system. The governments own data admits this. They actually say the Covid-19 vaccine has a lower probability of working well for these seniors and recommend getting it even more often (like every 2-3 months).
Building the immune system won't necessarily help. Vaccines do that, but misdirect it. I'm not one of the lucky 0.26% unvaccinated. They cause allergies and autoimmunities such as asthma. Bronchitis from original covid strain nearly killed me, and asthma contributed to that. Why do you think immunosuppressive corticosteroids reduce covid mortality? (NSAIDs aren't so good as they suppress interferon.) But if you think allergies and autoimmunities are wonderful...
Yes but there are simple and inexpensive remedies that could have helped. I also know someone that had a severe Covid case.
I'll be sure to put them in my time machine and send them, with instructions, back 4½ years. I suspect some others could also have used them.
Peppermint oil relieved the bronchial spasms. Send some of that to those others who suffered them, esp. to those who died in this timeline.
Is this now a science-fiction thread?
There were some doctors that treated thousands of people with various protocols including the Zelensky protocol and had essentially no deaths. They used things like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine -- not necessarily those at all but various other remedies. These were published at the time but the authorities ignored them. No time machine is needed.
While a lot of things were said at the time, ivermectin, chloroquine (hydroxychloroquine came to the fore later), and even vitamin C, though not zinc, became unavailable. Just ask my pharmacist brother in law what the pharmaceutical miscreants instructed about the first 3! (He filled the prescriptions, but his 3 employee pharmacists, 1 of which was his own son, refused to do so. And good luck getting such prescriptions. Horse paste was also in short supply. Rumor has it, the gain of function virus included malaria sequences as a secret remedy for the Illuminati-favored people who took ill.)
I'm so glad you're as facile as Yehuda Berg at changing the past. Will you bring back those who died? Some did, despite misleading statistical comparisons to severe flu years, you know.
Yes and why were Ivermectin et cetera hard to find? It was pressure from the authorities. If there had been a remedy for Covid then the vaccines could not have been justified and the drug companies would have lost huge profits. That could not be allowed. Believe me I know about some who had severe Covid and it was not a joke at all. But the great majority could have been saved and their deaths can be charged to the opposition of the authorities. There are many many in this movement who understand all I am saying and maybe you can have a dialogue with them.
Here is the simplest data set ever that shows vaccine didn't work. Focus on one narrow age group of seniors. This show no increase in risk to this senior cohort in 2020 but increase in all-cause mortality in 2021 and 2022. Also increase in Covid-19 specific deaths in 2022 vs 2020 so vaccine program raised both Covid-19 deaths and all-cause mortality.
Mortality rates, by age group, annual data
Table: 13-10-0710-01
Release date: 2023-11-27
For BC take one age group as an example:
Age 65-69 all-cause mortality normalized rate per 1,000
2018: 9.9
2019: 9.9
2020: 9.9 (no change in biggest pandemic said to affect seniors)
2021: 11.2 (double vax causes death rate increase)
2022: 10.9 (after booster death rate stays 10% above baseline)
Next check this table from stats Canada
Leading causes of death, total population (age standardization using 2011 population)
Table: 13-10-0801-01
Release date: 2023-11-27
This shows even Covid-19 deaths remained higher in 2022 than 2020. In fact more than double the 2020 numbers.
Below are the actual number of deaths by year from BC:
2020: 914
2021: 1,685
2022: 2,228 (more than double 2020 numbers)
Link for top causes of death from BC are below:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=1310080101
All-cause mortality data link below:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310071001&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.11&pickMembers%5B1%5D=3.1&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2018&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2022&referencePeriods=20180101%2C20220101
Statistics Canada also offers and different approach to showing impact on health during Covid-19 era.
tatistics Canada explains how much the health of Canadian's was destroyed by public health officials.
Statistics Canada reports annually on the number of people who feel "fair to poor" vs "good to excellent". This data shows roughly 1.1 million more people were feeling in worse health in 2022 after this trend was stable for years including in 2020. It wasn't until the vaccine policy was rolled out that people really began to feel unwell. Why? Were is the official study explaining all this?
Summary stats below:
Number of people in Canada feeling "Fair to poor":
(in millions)
2017: 3.4
2018: 3.4
2019: 3.4
2020: 3.4
2021: 3.7
2022: 4.5
BC’s share is about 220,000 or about 5% of the total BC population feeling worse. We don’t have 100% prove it was the vax but it was certainly due to the combined effects of all the government policies in aggregate.
Steve,
Here is confirmation. They intend to kill us.
WEF Memo Reveals Plan to Depopulate the World of 1 Billion White People By 2030
https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/wef-memo-reveals-plan-to-depopulate-the-world-of-1-billion-white-people-by-2030/
Thank you for this tremendously important work, and for reporting on it.
This I wanted to underline:
"Also, this is precisely why this method (comparing brands) is so valuable: because the ONLY systemic difference between the cohorts who opted for vaccination is the brand they got. But there are huge differences between vaxxed and unvaxxed that most all researchers do not appreciate and cannot adjust for. This is why studies claim the COVID vaccines save lives when they are actually increasing all-cause mortality."
Yup! This is one of the the most important parts of the analysis
Steve, hoping you have excellent doctors helping in the effort to save your sight.
Take care. xxx
I wonder how the leaders feel about this - is there ANY remorse, or sorrow or guilt for what they have done? Mass murder is what they have done, sanctioned and approved following UN/WEF orders?
They should all be charged with crimes against humanity - and face the most serious penalty.
Same goes in all countries!
I’m sorry - ‘I was only following orders’ will not cut it! The Nazis tried that - and failed!
There are a few with regrets
They aren’t just following WEF orders. Many previous congresses and administrations passed legislation for big pharma to do what it’s doing going back many decades. When they gave big pharma immunity from lawsuits they asked why they just couldn’t make vaccines safe and were told it was impossible. They voted for immunity anyway. Now many take money from big pharma so they keeping their mouth s shut.