The comorbidity index (DCCI) for the Pfizer v. Moderna groups was comparable (SMD around .05), but mortality was consistently higher for Moderna. The most likely explanation: Moderna was more deadly.
I'm listening to my God and I didn't go near any one of those fake vaccine shots. Most of the people that died from them are the elderly, that should tell you something
Reading this article reminds me of the social pressure during the height of Covid - a simple task like picking up books at the school I would get hounded by the other moms to make sure my daughter would get the shot or else she wont' be able to participate and return to school or have play dates - as I type this note I remember one beautiful mom who passed and left two kids behind she had gotten Moderna, an other mom has POTS, the other facial paralysis - funny enough all the ppl pressuring the others at that time...they seem fine now and continued their life like nothing happened...
>A 7 year old dying from a myocardial infarction should have screamed STOP THE SHOTS !!!<
No, that depends on the *actual* motives and intentions behind the mRNA injections. A form of proof that the motives and intentions were deliberately destructive, comes in the form of absence of criminal and civil actions against the perpetrators.
I discovered that it was known that CZECh links the mortality data with the vaccination record putatively before Dec 2020, which would have given Pfizer reason to provide Process 1 LNPs which does not cause shedding (and an increased risk of non-COVID-19 deaths). Someone needs to test the vaccines for evidence of process 1 rather than process 2.
I am somewhat confused by the finding Moderna or Pfizer mRNA shots caused higher all-cause mortality. All cause is more dependent upon the non-COVID-19 mortality rates (more frequent). In Florida and England, the non-COVID-19 mortality rates pertained to "shedding" (bioweaponized HERV-K102). This at variance for the CZECh data implies either the Pfizer shots were Process 1 (which doesn't generate shedding) or Moderna also had a process 2 which contributed to shedding. Why would Pfizer provide clean LNPs for Czech? Were they expecting closer scrutiny of the data?
The reason why you claim that non-COVID deaths were caused by shedding in England is that in the English ONS data, unvaccinated people have a large increase in non-COVID mortality in early 2021 when the first dose was rolled out. But that's because of the healthy vaccinee effect and not because of shedding. In the English and Czech data, the healthy vaccinee effect causes recently vaccinated people have temporarily reduced mortality for the first couple of months after vaccination, because people who are sick or on their deathbed avoid getting vaccinated. But the HVE does not reduce the total mortality of the population, so the HVE causes the mortality of people with n-1 doses to go up when the nth dose is rolled out. [https://sars2.net/uk.html#Problems_with_Fenton_and_Neils_n_1_dose_misclassification_hypothesis]
Your shedding theory doesn't explain why people who recently got the first dose had much lower than normal mortality when the first dose was rolled out. But HVE does.
For the later it is trained immunity induced by the first dose that protects against all-cause mortality. There were shedding deaths associated with the first dose such as within 48 hours putatively related to the fully vaccinated vaccinator ( who just received 2 doses of Pfizer). Most of the shedding deaths were after the second dose and also alot after the 3rd dose within the first 48 hours according to VAERS. The unvaccinated showed the non-COVID-19 mortality peak after the second dose not the first.
Fascinating chart in black with the age group categories. It looks like the 1930-34 group had a 50x higher mortality rate than the 1970-74 group ie. 277/1000 deaths compared to 5.6/1000 for the Moderna vaxx. But this latter number is still only 0.5%, but still unacceptable for a supposed therapeutic intervention. While the older groups had a smaller mortality increase with the Moderna vaxx, they were killed more often at 27%. The relative risk definitely showed a linear increase from lower for the older group (1.15) to higher for the younger group (1.6). Math can provide such useful information when it is done with care and honesty. Thanks Steve.
The vaccine debate was poisoned by censorship, not skepticism. Americans were told to trust authorities who often refused to release the very graphs, datasets, and mortality comparisons needed to earn trust. If Moderna recipients died at higher rates in the Czech data, and if Florida data also showed brand-based non-COVID mortality differences, then the public deserves transparency, replication, and adversarial review. Maybe unmeasured allocation bias explains it. Maybe batch variability matters. Maybe the products carried different risk profiles. But the remedy is not silence. It is open data, honest inquiry, accountability, and an end to public-health priestcraft.
En realidad MURIERON MÁS todas las personas que recibieron CUALQUIER TIPO DE VACUNA COVID porque la CONSIGNA era MATAR GENTE, en especial a ANCIANOS, dejar enfermos a los ADULTOS JÓVENES y ESTERILIZAR a los NIÑOS. Ésto lo dicen los ENFERMEROS VALIENTES y los MÉDICOS DISIDENTES de todo el mundo. Y nosotros, los NO VACUNADOS, lo estamos CONSTATANDO en el día a día. Desde Mendoza, Argentina: gracias por SEGUIR DESMONTANDO este GOLPE DE ESTADO PSEUDO SANITARIO CONTRA UNA HUMANIDAD INDEFENSA, CREDULONA y DISCAPACITADA PARA REACCIONAR.
You'll never read any of this in any 'mainstream' media. What you will read is platitudes, spin, obfuscation, denial, and "It's safe; It's effective" - when the 'vaccine' is neither and they knew it. This is fraud and genocide on an industrial scale and the denial continues unabated. I've long argued for a reconvened set of Nuremberg trials for these retrogrades.
Thanks. This was remarkable data, and I'm hoping that future data releases from more sources have increased granularity as researchers start examining more long term effects of these vaccines.
I did a Poisson regression for mortality by vaccine brand in the Japanese FOI data from the city of Koganei. I adjusted the regression for age group, sex, observation month, and vaccination month. The 95% CI of Pfizer RR relative to Moderna was about 1.5-2.6 for first doses, 1.7-2.8 for second doses, 0.8-0.9 for third doses, 0.6-0.8 for 4th doses, 0.3-0.6 for 5th doses, 0.4-0.6 for 6th doses, and 0.6-1.1 for 7th doses. So Pfizer had higher mortality for primary course doses but Moderna had higher mortality for booster doses: https://sars2.net/rootclaim5.html#Pfizer_Moderna_mortality_ratio_in_Japanese_Koganei_data.
I don't think the difference is because one vaccine brand killed more people than the other brand, but because of unadjusted confounders. And booster doses had a different profile of confounders than primary course doses.
I now did a similar Poisson regression for the Czech NZIP data. I adjusted the regression for the year of birth, sex, and vaccination week, but not for observation week (since adjustment for observation week is mostly redundant if you adjust for vaccination week). I also didn't adjust for DCCI, because DCCI is only included for people with a COVID case listed.
I calculated the mortality from the week of vaccination up to death or week 41 of 2024, so that I didn't censor on a new vaccine dose.
The 95% CI of the Pfizer RR relative to Moderna was about 0.76-0.78 for first doses, 0.75-0.77 for second doses, 0.85-0.87 for third doses, 0.94-1.04 for fourth doses, and 0.35-2.09 for fifth doses.
So there was no significant difference for fourth doses. The point estimate for fourth doses was about 0.99, which is very close to 1, which would be strange if Moderna vaccines were somehow consistently killing huge numbers of people.
I now also did a similar regression in the earlier Czech dataset released in March 2024. I now only adjusted the regression for age as a categorical variable by 5-year groups. I censored on death or December 31st 2022, but not on a new vaccine dose.
When stratified by the month of the first vaccine dose, the mortality rate ratio of Pfizer relative to Moderna ranged from about 0.46 to 0.92 for the first 9 months of 2021. But in the fourth quarter of 2021, the ratio increased to about 1.10 for October, 0.98 for November, and 0.98 for December. None of the ratios in the fourth quarter of 2021 were significant, but the confidence intervals were still fairly narrow.
So did the Moderna vaccines somehow become less deadly in the fourth quarter of 2021, or did the Pfizer vaccines become more deadly? Or are there in reality only few people killed by vaccines, but the difference between Moderna and Pfizer is because of confounders, and different months of vaccination have different profiles of confounders?
The thing that jumps out at me is the ABSOLUTE difference in mortality, not the relative risk. For example, look at the birth cohort 1950-1954. These people would be 67 to 71 in 2021.
For the Pfizer group, deaths per 1000 were 28.39, while they were 35.40 for the Moderna group. That's a 7.01 per thousand difference!
I've been thinking these shots killed between 1 in 1000 to 1 in 800 people, and this data shows that for that age group, the increase for the Moderna group over the Pfizer group was 1 in 143 over 2 years!
If we assume the Moderna shots are 3 times as deadly as the Pfizer shots, in line with the amount of mRNA in them, then the Moderna shots killed 10.5 per 1000 and the Pfizer shots killed 3.5 per 1000 over two years.
If one were to assume the Moderna shot was 4 times as deadly as the Pfizer shot, the Moderna shots killed 9.3 people per 1000 in this age group over 2 years and the Pfizer shots killed 2.3 per 1000 in two years.
I don't know at this point where the graph is that shows what sector of the population died the most from the shots, I do however remember it was the older population. In my opinion that was the goal as they are the pension/ Social Security receivers. I am one of them too and never went near any of these shots!! I take excellent care of myself, do not eat all the garbage food that they sell us out there, and the last time I had a major illness/6wk Flu was 2016!!!
I'm listening to my God and I didn't go near any one of those fake vaccine shots. Most of the people that died from them are the elderly, that should tell you something
Reading this article reminds me of the social pressure during the height of Covid - a simple task like picking up books at the school I would get hounded by the other moms to make sure my daughter would get the shot or else she wont' be able to participate and return to school or have play dates - as I type this note I remember one beautiful mom who passed and left two kids behind she had gotten Moderna, an other mom has POTS, the other facial paralysis - funny enough all the ppl pressuring the others at that time...they seem fine now and continued their life like nothing happened...
One big difference between Pfizer and Moderna: the dose. 100ml/30ml.
>A 7 year old dying from a myocardial infarction should have screamed STOP THE SHOTS !!!<
No, that depends on the *actual* motives and intentions behind the mRNA injections. A form of proof that the motives and intentions were deliberately destructive, comes in the form of absence of criminal and civil actions against the perpetrators.
I discovered that it was known that CZECh links the mortality data with the vaccination record putatively before Dec 2020, which would have given Pfizer reason to provide Process 1 LNPs which does not cause shedding (and an increased risk of non-COVID-19 deaths). Someone needs to test the vaccines for evidence of process 1 rather than process 2.
I am somewhat confused by the finding Moderna or Pfizer mRNA shots caused higher all-cause mortality. All cause is more dependent upon the non-COVID-19 mortality rates (more frequent). In Florida and England, the non-COVID-19 mortality rates pertained to "shedding" (bioweaponized HERV-K102). This at variance for the CZECh data implies either the Pfizer shots were Process 1 (which doesn't generate shedding) or Moderna also had a process 2 which contributed to shedding. Why would Pfizer provide clean LNPs for Czech? Were they expecting closer scrutiny of the data?
Of course process 2 was also used in Czech lots. Last year Richard Fleming, Peter Kotlar, and Sona Pekova published a study where they sequenced Czech vaccine lots, and they found plasmid elements from residual DNA in both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. [https://fc154d98-d3e9-47b4-83ff-8d5f685c0fd1.filesusr.com/ugd/659775_4f73f98b60ae4438bd343c21f2cfc79c.pdf]
The reason why you claim that non-COVID deaths were caused by shedding in England is that in the English ONS data, unvaccinated people have a large increase in non-COVID mortality in early 2021 when the first dose was rolled out. But that's because of the healthy vaccinee effect and not because of shedding. In the English and Czech data, the healthy vaccinee effect causes recently vaccinated people have temporarily reduced mortality for the first couple of months after vaccination, because people who are sick or on their deathbed avoid getting vaccinated. But the HVE does not reduce the total mortality of the population, so the HVE causes the mortality of people with n-1 doses to go up when the nth dose is rolled out. [https://sars2.net/uk.html#Problems_with_Fenton_and_Neils_n_1_dose_misclassification_hypothesis]
Your shedding theory doesn't explain why people who recently got the first dose had much lower than normal mortality when the first dose was rolled out. But HVE does.
For the later it is trained immunity induced by the first dose that protects against all-cause mortality. There were shedding deaths associated with the first dose such as within 48 hours putatively related to the fully vaccinated vaccinator ( who just received 2 doses of Pfizer). Most of the shedding deaths were after the second dose and also alot after the 3rd dose within the first 48 hours according to VAERS. The unvaccinated showed the non-COVID-19 mortality peak after the second dose not the first.
Fascinating chart in black with the age group categories. It looks like the 1930-34 group had a 50x higher mortality rate than the 1970-74 group ie. 277/1000 deaths compared to 5.6/1000 for the Moderna vaxx. But this latter number is still only 0.5%, but still unacceptable for a supposed therapeutic intervention. While the older groups had a smaller mortality increase with the Moderna vaxx, they were killed more often at 27%. The relative risk definitely showed a linear increase from lower for the older group (1.15) to higher for the younger group (1.6). Math can provide such useful information when it is done with care and honesty. Thanks Steve.
No surprise there....."The solution to climate change is depopulation."
— Bill Gates 2016
The vaccine debate was poisoned by censorship, not skepticism. Americans were told to trust authorities who often refused to release the very graphs, datasets, and mortality comparisons needed to earn trust. If Moderna recipients died at higher rates in the Czech data, and if Florida data also showed brand-based non-COVID mortality differences, then the public deserves transparency, replication, and adversarial review. Maybe unmeasured allocation bias explains it. Maybe batch variability matters. Maybe the products carried different risk profiles. But the remedy is not silence. It is open data, honest inquiry, accountability, and an end to public-health priestcraft.
That makes sense since the Moderna vials were reported to have far higher concentration of mRNA than that of Pfizer's.
We have lost friendships, lost contact with family members, ..... have kept to ourselves at home, life is very different these days.
En realidad MURIERON MÁS todas las personas que recibieron CUALQUIER TIPO DE VACUNA COVID porque la CONSIGNA era MATAR GENTE, en especial a ANCIANOS, dejar enfermos a los ADULTOS JÓVENES y ESTERILIZAR a los NIÑOS. Ésto lo dicen los ENFERMEROS VALIENTES y los MÉDICOS DISIDENTES de todo el mundo. Y nosotros, los NO VACUNADOS, lo estamos CONSTATANDO en el día a día. Desde Mendoza, Argentina: gracias por SEGUIR DESMONTANDO este GOLPE DE ESTADO PSEUDO SANITARIO CONTRA UNA HUMANIDAD INDEFENSA, CREDULONA y DISCAPACITADA PARA REACCIONAR.
You'll never read any of this in any 'mainstream' media. What you will read is platitudes, spin, obfuscation, denial, and "It's safe; It's effective" - when the 'vaccine' is neither and they knew it. This is fraud and genocide on an industrial scale and the denial continues unabated. I've long argued for a reconvened set of Nuremberg trials for these retrogrades.
Thanks. This was remarkable data, and I'm hoping that future data releases from more sources have increased granularity as researchers start examining more long term effects of these vaccines.
I did a Poisson regression for mortality by vaccine brand in the Japanese FOI data from the city of Koganei. I adjusted the regression for age group, sex, observation month, and vaccination month. The 95% CI of Pfizer RR relative to Moderna was about 1.5-2.6 for first doses, 1.7-2.8 for second doses, 0.8-0.9 for third doses, 0.6-0.8 for 4th doses, 0.3-0.6 for 5th doses, 0.4-0.6 for 6th doses, and 0.6-1.1 for 7th doses. So Pfizer had higher mortality for primary course doses but Moderna had higher mortality for booster doses: https://sars2.net/rootclaim5.html#Pfizer_Moderna_mortality_ratio_in_Japanese_Koganei_data.
I don't think the difference is because one vaccine brand killed more people than the other brand, but because of unadjusted confounders. And booster doses had a different profile of confounders than primary course doses.
I now did a similar Poisson regression for the Czech NZIP data. I adjusted the regression for the year of birth, sex, and vaccination week, but not for observation week (since adjustment for observation week is mostly redundant if you adjust for vaccination week). I also didn't adjust for DCCI, because DCCI is only included for people with a COVID case listed.
I calculated the mortality from the week of vaccination up to death or week 41 of 2024, so that I didn't censor on a new vaccine dose.
The 95% CI of the Pfizer RR relative to Moderna was about 0.76-0.78 for first doses, 0.75-0.77 for second doses, 0.85-0.87 for third doses, 0.94-1.04 for fourth doses, and 0.35-2.09 for fifth doses.
So there was no significant difference for fourth doses. The point estimate for fourth doses was about 0.99, which is very close to 1, which would be strange if Moderna vaccines were somehow consistently killing huge numbers of people.
f1="https://data.mzcr.cz/data/distribuce/402/"
f2="Otevrena-data-NR-26-30-COVID-19-prehled-populace-2024-01.csv"
download.file(paste0(f1,f2),f2)
t=fread(f2)
t=t[Infekce%in%c(1,NA)][RokNarozeni!="-"]
t[,born:=pmax(1925,pmin(1995,as.integer(substr(RokNarozeni,1,4))))]
weeks=t[,sort(unique(DatumUmrtiLPZ))][-1]
l=t[,.(born,sex=Pohlavi,dead=match(DatumUmrtiLPZ,weeks),dose=rep(1:7,each=.N))]
l$vax=match(unlist(t[,11:17],,F),weeks)
l$brand=unlist(t[,18:24],,F)
co1=sprintf("CO%02d",c(1,8,9,16,20,21));co2=sprintf("CO%02d",c(2,12,15))
l=l[brand%in%c(co1,co2)][,brand:=ifelse(brand%in%co1,"Pfizer","Moderna")]
l[,end:=nafill(dead,,length(weeks))]
a=l[,.(dead=sum(!is.na(dead)),pop=sum(end-vax+1)),.(dose,born,brand,vax,sex)]
rr=\(x){x=exp(coef(x)[2]+-1:1*qnorm(.975)*sqrt(diag(vcov(x)))[2]);list(rr=x[2],lo=x[1],hi=x[3])}
a[dose<6,rr(glm(dead~brand+sex+factor(born)+factor(vax),"poisson",offset=log(pop))),dose]
I now also did a similar regression in the earlier Czech dataset released in March 2024. I now only adjusted the regression for age as a categorical variable by 5-year groups. I censored on death or December 31st 2022, but not on a new vaccine dose.
When stratified by the month of the first vaccine dose, the mortality rate ratio of Pfizer relative to Moderna ranged from about 0.46 to 0.92 for the first 9 months of 2021. But in the fourth quarter of 2021, the ratio increased to about 1.10 for October, 0.98 for November, and 0.98 for December. None of the ratios in the fourth quarter of 2021 were significant, but the confidence intervals were still fairly narrow.
So did the Moderna vaccines somehow become less deadly in the fourth quarter of 2021, or did the Pfizer vaccines become more deadly? Or are there in reality only few people killed by vaccines, but the difference between Moderna and Pfizer is because of confounders, and different months of vaccination have different profiles of confounders?
t=fread("https://sars2.net/f/czbucketskeep.csv.gz")
s=t[dose==1&type%in%c("Moderna","Pfizer")&vaxmonth%like%2021]
s[,age:={x=c(0,3:19*5);x[findInterval(age,x)]}]
a=s[,.(pop=sum(alive),dead=sum(dead)),.(type,age,vaxmonth)]
a[,{lm=glm(dead~type+factor(age),"poisson",offset=log(pop))
x=round(exp(coef(lm)[2]+-1:1*qnorm(.975)*sqrt(diag(vcov(lm)))[2]),2)
.(rr=x[2],lo=x[1],hi=x[3])},vaxmonth]
# vaxmonth rr lo hi
# 2021-01 0.46 0.44 0.49
# 2021-02 0.79 0.76 0.82
# 2021-03 0.80 0.77 0.82
# 2021-04 0.87 0.84 0.91
# 2021-05 0.72 0.68 0.75
# 2021-06 0.74 0.70 0.79
# 2021-07 0.76 0.67 0.86
# 2021-08 0.92 0.77 1.10
# 2021-09 0.78 0.66 0.93
# 2021-10 1.10 0.89 1.36
# 2021-11 0.98 0.87 1.11
# 2021-12 0.98 0.86 1.12
It could be that Moderna reduced the amount of mRNA in the vaccines, or sent out out some placebo lots.
Alternatively, some people that got the Moderna shot may have gotten sicker and refused to get the second shot in the series.
Or, the data may be of fairly low quality.
The thing that jumps out at me is the ABSOLUTE difference in mortality, not the relative risk. For example, look at the birth cohort 1950-1954. These people would be 67 to 71 in 2021.
For the Pfizer group, deaths per 1000 were 28.39, while they were 35.40 for the Moderna group. That's a 7.01 per thousand difference!
I've been thinking these shots killed between 1 in 1000 to 1 in 800 people, and this data shows that for that age group, the increase for the Moderna group over the Pfizer group was 1 in 143 over 2 years!
If we assume the Moderna shots are 3 times as deadly as the Pfizer shots, in line with the amount of mRNA in them, then the Moderna shots killed 10.5 per 1000 and the Pfizer shots killed 3.5 per 1000 over two years.
If one were to assume the Moderna shot was 4 times as deadly as the Pfizer shot, the Moderna shots killed 9.3 people per 1000 in this age group over 2 years and the Pfizer shots killed 2.3 per 1000 in two years.
Damn, those numbers are ugly.
1/1000 to 1/1500 is about right
I don't know at this point where the graph is that shows what sector of the population died the most from the shots, I do however remember it was the older population. In my opinion that was the goal as they are the pension/ Social Security receivers. I am one of them too and never went near any of these shots!! I take excellent care of myself, do not eat all the garbage food that they sell us out there, and the last time I had a major illness/6wk Flu was 2016!!!