Record-level data from Czech Republic FOIA proves that the Moderna vaccines increased all-cause mortality by over 30% (and the Pfizer vaccines weren't safe either)
Record-level data from Czech Republic FOIA proves that the Moderna vaccines increased all-cause mortality by over 30% (and the Pfizer vaccines weren't safe either)
"Safe and effective?" Using this new data, we can finally prove that the COVID vaccines were not safe or effective for anyone of any age. No COVID benefits, and they increased your risk of death.
Hi. My first comment on your Substack. I have zero training in statistics and follow along with difficulty, but still MUCH appreciation for your courage and contribution over the past few years.
Like Zbigniew, I need clarification about this:
"Why aren’t we just comparing the vaccinated mortality with the unvaccinated mortality like all the other studies do?
Because in most countries, the unvaccinated are hard to count (until they die). This makes it appear that the unvaccinated die at a substantially higher rate than the vaccinated. Using the unvaccinated as a comparison group can create a “mirage” that the COVID vaccines saved lives!"
Going through your posts about the Czech. data, I've been constantly, wildly distracted by the black line, "unvaccinated", soaring high above all the vaxxed ASMR data in the chart.
So to summarize. Getting any vaccine is safer than getting no vaccine.
Vaccines safety profiles differ because they are different.
Just like in any other sphere of medicine: We have different treatments, medications and therapy options for the same conditions but with different safety profiles and not everybody has access to the same things, out of financial, logistical or other reasons.
But depending on individual and personal circumstance, it is better than not taking the medication/having the treatment.
So how is this situation here different just because the topic is "vaccine"?
I think that "the unvaccinated are hard to count (until they die)" deserves some more explanation. May countries like mine have a very comprehensive database on citizens and know exactly how may people aged for example 53 are there. So if you have number of vaccinated you have exact number of unvaccinated, so the claim "the unvaccinated are hard to count (until they die) are false regarding such countries.
In other countries like GB the government probably does not have such a system or database, so it might be true in such case, but it isn't true always and I don't know if it is considering Czechia.
Henjin plotted an age standardized mortality rate plot (see section below) showing the unvaccinated vs. Moderna vs. Pfizer showing that the gaps don’t seem to change much over time. Can you determine high COVID (gaps should widen) vs. low COVID (gaps should disappear) from this graph by looking at the graph? You sure can’t! And that’s the problem, isn’t it?
- This is true only if we believe that Covid does not produce long-term deleterious effects. Yet if Covid produces long-term harm (in similar manner you claim for "vaccine harm"), the acute Covid survivors continue to die post-spike, hence the ASMR doesn't coincide with acute COVID deaths.
I would even agree that generally virus proteins are not good for your health, yet I would prefer getting virus protein in a controlled manner (vaccine) rather than totally uncontrolled (acute Covid).
Btw given the known age confounding between the different vaccine brands, it was not clear how much of the difference in chronic illness proportion was due to the age difference or whether certain brands were given more or less to those with chronic conditions than others even within the same age groups
This analysis computed the age adjusted chronic illness proportion and even after age adjustment the prevalence of chronic conditions was 26% less than expected for Pfizer and 55% more than expected for Moderna, showing the chronic illness confounding was still major after accounting for age differences.
Incidentally, for AZ it was even higher, being 252% more than expected.
So it appears the comorbidity confounding between vaccine doses was major and over and above the age confounding that was also present
I have been using different method. The problem is everything is batch dependent and this may cause health insurence dependecy of the deaths. It is still about toxic batches.
The problem when comparing Novavax with Pfizer is that Novavax people are more hesitant. I don't think even Novavax was safe, still has the myocarditis problem, but these groups are different from the getgo.
Something I'd be proud of if I were have done the work.
It would further help your argument if you could get someone to calculate error bars for you plots of Moderna/Pfizer death rate plots; I believe this would really show the significance of your findings.
The message of Kirsch's article is wrong!
See the German original:
https://tkp.at/2024/08/06/spikevax-gefaehrlicher-als-comirnaty-steve-kirsch-greift-daneben/
The homepage also provides autotranslated versions in many languages.
Steve, you should give special credit to smis-lab.cz. The data is the outcome of the long-standing efforts of people aligned around this group.
Tomáš Fürst dropped some comments on your findings:
https://smis--lab-cz.translate.goog/2024/07/21/skutecne-dlouha-data-po-skutecne-dlouhe-dobe-aneb-vivat-cecija/?_x_tr_sl=cs&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=cs&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Hi. My first comment on your Substack. I have zero training in statistics and follow along with difficulty, but still MUCH appreciation for your courage and contribution over the past few years.
Like Zbigniew, I need clarification about this:
"Why aren’t we just comparing the vaccinated mortality with the unvaccinated mortality like all the other studies do?
Because in most countries, the unvaccinated are hard to count (until they die). This makes it appear that the unvaccinated die at a substantially higher rate than the vaccinated. Using the unvaccinated as a comparison group can create a “mirage” that the COVID vaccines saved lives!"
Going through your posts about the Czech. data, I've been constantly, wildly distracted by the black line, "unvaccinated", soaring high above all the vaxxed ASMR data in the chart.
https://sars2.net/czech2.html#ASMR_by_month_and_vaccine_type
What am I missing? Anyone? I'd like to understand this.
Thanks!
So to summarize. Getting any vaccine is safer than getting no vaccine.
Vaccines safety profiles differ because they are different.
Just like in any other sphere of medicine: We have different treatments, medications and therapy options for the same conditions but with different safety profiles and not everybody has access to the same things, out of financial, logistical or other reasons.
But depending on individual and personal circumstance, it is better than not taking the medication/having the treatment.
So how is this situation here different just because the topic is "vaccine"?
I think that "the unvaccinated are hard to count (until they die)" deserves some more explanation. May countries like mine have a very comprehensive database on citizens and know exactly how may people aged for example 53 are there. So if you have number of vaccinated you have exact number of unvaccinated, so the claim "the unvaccinated are hard to count (until they die) are false regarding such countries.
In other countries like GB the government probably does not have such a system or database, so it might be true in such case, but it isn't true always and I don't know if it is considering Czechia.
Look at figure 3 in this article. How could it not be known? https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/42/126
Also the TGA proportional reporting ratio (PRR) are high.
If after 4 years there isn't available data to judge the ACM of the Pfizer jab, one should expect it to be devastating, otherwise why hide it?
Allergies and vaccines may be contributing to the disproportionate increase in female transgender rates noted in the Cass report:
https://psikolog1.substack.com/p/how-allergies-and-vaccines-may-be?r=o86sd
Henjin plotted an age standardized mortality rate plot (see section below) showing the unvaccinated vs. Moderna vs. Pfizer showing that the gaps don’t seem to change much over time. Can you determine high COVID (gaps should widen) vs. low COVID (gaps should disappear) from this graph by looking at the graph? You sure can’t! And that’s the problem, isn’t it?
- This is true only if we believe that Covid does not produce long-term deleterious effects. Yet if Covid produces long-term harm (in similar manner you claim for "vaccine harm"), the acute Covid survivors continue to die post-spike, hence the ASMR doesn't coincide with acute COVID deaths.
I would even agree that generally virus proteins are not good for your health, yet I would prefer getting virus protein in a controlled manner (vaccine) rather than totally uncontrolled (acute Covid).
Turns out that there WAS major confounding between the vaccine brands in Czechia.
Twice the proportion of Moderna recipients were chronically ill than Pfizer (7.4% vs. 3.7%).
Confounding.
I can't post the table here but follow this link for the table and the reference from Czechia.
Retraction time, Steve?
https://x.com/UncleJo46902375/status/1814375808062112215
Btw given the known age confounding between the different vaccine brands, it was not clear how much of the difference in chronic illness proportion was due to the age difference or whether certain brands were given more or less to those with chronic conditions than others even within the same age groups
This analysis computed the age adjusted chronic illness proportion and even after age adjustment the prevalence of chronic conditions was 26% less than expected for Pfizer and 55% more than expected for Moderna, showing the chronic illness confounding was still major after accounting for age differences.
Incidentally, for AZ it was even higher, being 252% more than expected.
So it appears the comorbidity confounding between vaccine doses was major and over and above the age confounding that was also present
https://x.com/henjin256/status/1814584965020950569?s=46&t=GK2Pg-xOj-7_2hUTqegYjw
the incidence of myocarditis is 3x for moderna vs pfizer. what's your pretzel logic rationalization for that? lolz.
The story continues with one obvious "blind spot."
As Prof. Morris notes, "Covid mortality is not accounted."
The factor which is never discussed is the efficacy of prophylactic or early treatment, which should have rendered the entire vaxx programme moot.
You have written the software In Python and R, how does anyone who is not au fait with Python know that what you’ve written is valid?
Why are there divide by zero errors or invalid data in some of your Excel spreadsheets?
The Daily Beagle did an analysis.
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/deep-dive-of-the-deaths-dataset
https://x.com/jsm2334/status/1813584538922062000
https://x.com/thereal_truther/status/1814385185884123386?t=HGRJsTTYC1Hjx9TIGDz-jw&s=19
https://x.com/UncleJo46902375/status/1813967184202551500?t=tzLuY8358TJWIEK8KM5TyQ&s=19
The dataset is open. You can work with it by the means You choose.
Except it won’t load into my spreadsheet software as it’s too big.
Ok,h then you can still filter it for some subgroup.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-136137384?r=z2apl&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I have been using different method. The problem is everything is batch dependent and this may cause health insurence dependecy of the deaths. It is still about toxic batches.
The problem when comparing Novavax with Pfizer is that Novavax people are more hesitant. I don't think even Novavax was safe, still has the myocarditis problem, but these groups are different from the getgo.
Steve -- Beautiful piece of work !
Something I'd be proud of if I were have done the work.
It would further help your argument if you could get someone to calculate error bars for you plots of Moderna/Pfizer death rate plots; I believe this would really show the significance of your findings.