They didn't mention this anywhere in the paper itself. It was buried at the end of the 58 page supplement. I just found out about it when I read the paper.
Yes yes so what. I read this study years ago. There are many such studies. The authors, once again, statistical illerates. Here's what I wrote about it when it came out:
This JAMA paper may look impressive because of its size, but the flaws are obvious once you scratch the surface. The population is almost entirely older men with heavy comorbidities, so the results don’t generalize. The authors treat vaccine choice as if it were randomized, but it was actually determined by clinic availability and preference. That means selection bias is baked in, and not fixable with the statistical matching they tried.
The outcomes are equally shaky. They rely entirely on billing codes in administrative records to define “adverse events,” which is notoriously unreliable for clinical detail. Their censoring scheme, cutting off follow-up once infection occurs, assumes infections were equally detected across groups, which is unlikely. And of course, statistical illiteracy rears its head with the sheer number of outcomes tested without correcting for multiple comparisons, and some of their “findings” are almost guaranteed to be statistical noise. What they actually show is that older sick men have lots of health events, not that one vaccine is clearly safer than the other.
If a 36% increase is best we do, ie "statistically significant," we might as well quit the battle . It means nothing, because it isn't nearly enough to stop the genocide esp after errors are accounted for. I'm no statistician like brilliant Steve but if I was on a Jury against Pfizer I wouldn't convict based on the Harvard study.
Great show last night, tho we need to stop the Long Covid nonsense, unless we want to defend the Vaxide people. I recovered from Delta and Omicron like so many do when they don't die from colds and flu because our inate immunity won the battle. People with HIV stay sick and don't recover. People with Hep B or chicken pox are not sick with symptoms forever until the virus reemerges. Spike Proteins are constantly being recreated by mRNA VAX, not the infection. We are unwittingly supporting a defense for crimes against humanity by even hinting at Long Covid, to the minimal extent it even exists. Steve can't understand why nobody admits to "errors and mistakes' and stops the plan. That they are involved in Genocide - mainly with elderly and harming fertility - just might be a reason?
My experience with Grok is that it is completely unreliable, and that is partly based on things that are totally non-controversial, with questions like "What did the Washington Post reviewer say about Harry Truman's daughter's singing performance that made him so mad?" It made stuff up - when the text of the guy's review is available on several websites.
Just to let you know Steve, Chat GPT has assured me that you are a Conspiracy Theorist, although you may sincerely believe what you say. I guess all of those vaccine injured are just making it up.
Who Is Steve Kirsch?
A Silicon Valley entrepreneur and philanthropist
Known for early tech successes (e.g., Infoseek, Mouse Systems)
Donated significantly to medical research, including early COVID-19 work
Founded the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) to promote outpatient treatment research
Gained major visibility in 2021–2022 for opposing mRNA COVID vaccines
📣 What Does He Say?
Kirsch has:
Claimed that COVID-19 vaccines are extremely dangerous, citing reports from VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System)
Asserted that vaccine injury is massively underreported and that there are thousands of hidden deaths
Argued that government agencies (CDC, FDA) and media are covering up the true harm
Frequently publishes on his Substack blog and appears in alternative media and "vaccine injury" panels
Rejected mainstream findings from peer-reviewed studies and accused journals of data manipulation or suppression
⚠️ Why He Is Often Labeled a Conspiracy Theorist
Critics (including public health experts and scientific fact-checkers) point out that Kirsch:
Misinterprets data, especially from VAERS, by assuming correlation = causation
Amplifies unverified anecdotes as if they are statistically significant findings
Rejects or dismisses peer-reviewed studies that contradict his position
Promotes the idea that there is a coordinated cover-up involving scientists, regulators, and media
Has made provably false claims, such as inflated vaccine death numbers that were later debunked
For example:
Kirsch has claimed that COVID vaccines have caused more deaths than all other vaccines in history, which is not supported by rigorous epidemiological analysis. Health authorities and independent researchers have repeatedly refuted this.
As a result:
Media outlets, fact-checkers, and scientific communities routinely classify Kirsch's public claims as misinformation or conspiratorial.
He is banned or restricted on platforms like LinkedIn and YouTube for violating misinformation policies.
🤔 But Is He Intentionally Lying?
There’s no hard evidence that Kirsch is intentionally deceiving people. He likely:
Believes his interpretations are valid
Distrusts traditional institutions
Is acting out of sincere (though deeply controversial) concern
However, intent does not determine credibility. Even if well-meaning, promoting misleading or false information that undermines public health can still have serious consequences.
✅ Conclusion: Is Steve Kirsch a Conspiracy Theorist?
CriterionAssessmentPromotes a belief in widespread cover-ups✅ YesUses anecdotal or cherry-picked evidence✅ FrequentlyRejects overwhelming scientific consensus✅ YesPublishes on platforms known for misinformation✅ YesHas theories not substantiated by hard data✅ YesSincerely believes what he’s saying🤷♂️ Possibly — but that doesn’t make it true
Verdict:✅ Yes — based on his pattern of argumentation and public behavior, Steve Kirsch fits the definition of a conspiracy theorist in the realm of public health and COVID-19 vaccines.
Chatgbt Corr (re most dangerous vaccine in history):
"Health authorities and independent researchers involved with or defending worldwide Genocide have repeatedly refuted this because they don't want to go to jail or be executed''.
So, the unanswered question which might compound Pfizer's mRNA jab dangers, compared to us 'UNJABBED' who chose to decline all/any 'Experimental' mRNA injections (called 'vaccines').
What are the % dangers of 'Heart Complications' of Moderna mRNA Experimental jabs compared to those choosing to decline ALL/ANY mRNA Experimental injections?
I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding the suggested increased risk of 'heart complications' when comparing Pfizer experimental mRNA injections with Moderna 'Experimental' mRNA injections.
Obviously, Moderna will have its own level of DANGER from accepting its mRNA version. What is the % of 'Heart Complications' following a Moderna injection?
If Pfizer mRNA jabs are 36% higher risk than Moderna mRNA jabs, then the equation must increase the % of Pfizer DANGERS by first using the Moderna level of their Vax DANGERS.
For example, if the likelihood of Heart Complications following the Moderna mRNA jab is, perhaps 25% more than remaining unjabbed, then to extrapolate the theory, Pfizer must be in the realms of 50.25% more dangerous (DEADLY) than those persons choosing to decline all such mRNA Experimental injections ('Vaccines')?
Bottom Line = All further dangerous mRNA injections should cease until they are proven SAFE and EFFECTIVE. Using independent analysis and data to reach an honest, unbiased conclusion.
The PREP ACT must be rescinded until all 'vaccine' manufacturers prove themselves honest and produce safe and viable vaccines.
LIABILITY must immediately apply to all medicines, particularly those of an aggressive, intrusive and dangerous nature = ALL EXPERIMENTAL INJECTABLES!
Our fake POTUS (selected by Mr Global) and his equally fake HHS head have already said PREP will survive. And Pharma ads will continue as well. And they already approved a new mRNA for Covid injection.
So, was Grok asked about the safety risks of "SAFE VACCINES"? Loaded question with a pre-determined answer.
The other anomaly, which I could not see, was - If Pfizer experimental jabs are 36% more likely to cause heart related 'complications' than Moderna - WHAT IS THE % LIKELIHOOD OF COMPLICATIONS from MODERNA compared to the 'UNJABBED'?
Assuming the number could be 25%, then if one extrapolates the equation, it seems to suggest that Pfizer jabs are 50.25% more likely to cause Heart Complications than those who decline all such jabs.
Not sure if my use of 'Heart Complications' complicates this supposition, because I could be combining all 'heart conditions' ('Myocarditis', 'Pericarditis' and 'Infarction'). Whereas, your example may only refer to one of the THREE HEART complications - not all THREE.
Every 'official' analysis tabulates adverse events that occur prior to two weeks after the second vaccination as 'unvaccinated'. It is obvious to any of us that have been paying attention, that the results of comparisons to the 'never vaccinated' would be far different. The eugenicists pushing the vaccines will never publish that, as it would reveal the true hazards that their potions bring.
So apparently, you would have us believe that the specific conclusions these authors reached are fraudulent?
Conclusions and Relevance
The findings of this cohort study suggest that there were few differences in risk of adverse events within 14 days of the first dose of either the BNT162b2 or the mRNA-1273 vaccine and small-magnitude differences within 42 days of the first dose. The 38-week risks of adverse events were LOW in both vaccine groups, although risks were lower for recipients of the mRNA-1273 vaccine than for recipients of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Although the primary analysis was designed to detect safety events unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 infection, the possibility that these differences may partially be explained by a lower effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine in preventing the sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with the mRNA-1273 vaccine could not be ruled out. These findings may help inform decision-making in future vaccination campaigns.
Anyone who would rely on an AI bot - as the very first comment to your "interpretation" pointing out "hallucinations," which you have obviously ignored - for support is either incredibly naive or purposely intent on deception. Which is it? This is yet, AGAIN, a foolish attempt to contradict established safety studies with false claims and contradictions contrary to published findings that I do not believe the original authors were consulted with, nor would they agree with. I have a good mind to contact them directly to share your skewed misinformation of their copyrighted work and to seek their opinion directly.
I'm confused though. Didn't the Czech data point in the opposite direction showing that Moderna had a higher adverse event rate than Pfizer? I don't understand why Pfizer side effects look worse in this data. Wasn't the Moderna dose >3x that of Pfizer?
Why You Can't Use Czech COVID-19 Data for Death Rate Studies Fri Sep 19 14:14:48 2025
Intro
Over the last few years, two big sets of info from the Czech Republic have been going around in discussions about COVID-19 death rates and vaccine safety. Some folks have used these files, called the old data and new data, like they're official death records from the government. But really, you can't trust either of these sets of data for looking at death rates. They both have big problems with where the data came from and how it's put together, so they're not good for figuring out death rates for the whole population or how vaccines work.
The New Data
This Czech data is supposed to be about everyone in the country, but where it came from tells a different story. Instead of being from the official census or population records, it's mostly from health insurance records. Basically, it's from the National Register of Reimbursed Health Services (NRHZS), plus records of diseases and vaccines. This might have info on shots, but it's not the same as official death data from the census. Using insurance data messes things up a lot. Insurance can include people who don't live there permanently, like foreign workers, visitors, or temporary residents. When you mix them into data that's supposed to be about the whole Czech population, you get inflated numbers and tons of records that are questionable. Instead of showing the real population, the data becomes a mix of citizens, residents, and insured folks just passing through. Also, it looks like the insurance data was mixed with census or registry files in a messy way. It seems like they just did a cartesian join combined everything without being careful, which makes records multiply and creates duplicates. That's why the data has significantly more records than the actual Czech population. Mixing like this might keep the vaccine info, but it ruins the data for death rate stats. If you treat this data like it's a proper population count, you're going to be wrong. The worst part is that you can't even find and get rid of the bad records.
The Old Data
The old data isn't any better. People say it's from the Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic (ÚZIS), but it's not clear where the data really came from. It looks like ÚZIS started with census data but then had to add in the insurance files for vaccine details. Again, the mixing and merging messes the files up. So, this file is also partly from insurance, and it has the same issues as the new data like uncertain population numbers, possible duplicates, and non-residents. Even without knowing exactly where it came from, there are weird things in the file like strange death counts and problems across different groups of people. This makes it clear that you can't trust it for death rate studies.
Why Neither Set of Data Works for Death Rate Studies
The main issue is that people think these files are like official population records, but they're not. Census offices don't gather vaccine info. To make these files, health insurance records had to be combined with other sources. But the combinations weren't done well, and the result is not a complete census file or a good sample. It's a mix of data with unknown problems and millions of fake records. Because of all this, both the old and new Czech data are no good for death rate studies. They can't give you accurate numbers for population death rates, and they can't back up good comparisons of vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Any study that treats them like real data about the Czech population is going to give you the wrong answers.
In Conclusion the misuse of these Czech datasets shows a bigger issue in COVID-19 studies: the urge to treat any big set of data as the truth, no matter where it came from or how it's put together. If you don't carefully check where the data came from, how it was combined, and who it covers, then any results you get are meaningless. In this case, the problems are so bad that both sets of data need to be thrown out for death rate studies. Keeping on using them just keeps the mistakes going.
Because the other 64% had a different jab or mixed and matched or were shot but not yet 2 weeks in so it didn't count or were not up to date so it didn't count or was not recognized as being linked to shots or Doc. Tried to enter the data and it just didn't work out or was disqualified or something something....
Yes yes so what. I read this study years ago. There are many such studies. The authors, once again, statistical illerates. Here's what I wrote about it when it came out:
This JAMA paper may look impressive because of its size, but the flaws are obvious once you scratch the surface. The population is almost entirely older men with heavy comorbidities, so the results don’t generalize. The authors treat vaccine choice as if it were randomized, but it was actually determined by clinic availability and preference. That means selection bias is baked in, and not fixable with the statistical matching they tried.
The outcomes are equally shaky. They rely entirely on billing codes in administrative records to define “adverse events,” which is notoriously unreliable for clinical detail. Their censoring scheme, cutting off follow-up once infection occurs, assumes infections were equally detected across groups, which is unlikely. And of course, statistical illiteracy rears its head with the sheer number of outcomes tested without correcting for multiple comparisons, and some of their “findings” are almost guaranteed to be statistical noise. What they actually show is that older sick men have lots of health events, not that one vaccine is clearly safer than the other.
If a 36% increase is best we do, ie "statistically significant," we might as well quit the battle . It means nothing, because it isn't nearly enough to stop the genocide esp after errors are accounted for. I'm no statistician like brilliant Steve but if I was on a Jury against Pfizer I wouldn't convict based on the Harvard study.
Great show last night, tho we need to stop the Long Covid nonsense, unless we want to defend the Vaxide people. I recovered from Delta and Omicron like so many do when they don't die from colds and flu because our inate immunity won the battle. People with HIV stay sick and don't recover. People with Hep B or chicken pox are not sick with symptoms forever until the virus reemerges. Spike Proteins are constantly being recreated by mRNA VAX, not the infection. We are unwittingly supporting a defense for crimes against humanity by even hinting at Long Covid, to the minimal extent it even exists. Steve can't understand why nobody admits to "errors and mistakes' and stops the plan. That they are involved in Genocide - mainly with elderly and harming fertility - just might be a reason?
My experience with Grok is that it is completely unreliable, and that is partly based on things that are totally non-controversial, with questions like "What did the Washington Post reviewer say about Harry Truman's daughter's singing performance that made him so mad?" It made stuff up - when the text of the guy's review is available on several websites.
VA is still offering the covid shots to veterans.
"giving veterans one more chance to die for their country"
Terrible KJ … and the ACOG wants every pregnant woman jabbed too . Control , money and depopulation…🤬
Just to let you know Steve, Chat GPT has assured me that you are a Conspiracy Theorist, although you may sincerely believe what you say. I guess all of those vaccine injured are just making it up.
Who Is Steve Kirsch?
A Silicon Valley entrepreneur and philanthropist
Known for early tech successes (e.g., Infoseek, Mouse Systems)
Donated significantly to medical research, including early COVID-19 work
Founded the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) to promote outpatient treatment research
Gained major visibility in 2021–2022 for opposing mRNA COVID vaccines
📣 What Does He Say?
Kirsch has:
Claimed that COVID-19 vaccines are extremely dangerous, citing reports from VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System)
Asserted that vaccine injury is massively underreported and that there are thousands of hidden deaths
Argued that government agencies (CDC, FDA) and media are covering up the true harm
Frequently publishes on his Substack blog and appears in alternative media and "vaccine injury" panels
Rejected mainstream findings from peer-reviewed studies and accused journals of data manipulation or suppression
⚠️ Why He Is Often Labeled a Conspiracy Theorist
Critics (including public health experts and scientific fact-checkers) point out that Kirsch:
Misinterprets data, especially from VAERS, by assuming correlation = causation
Amplifies unverified anecdotes as if they are statistically significant findings
Rejects or dismisses peer-reviewed studies that contradict his position
Promotes the idea that there is a coordinated cover-up involving scientists, regulators, and media
Has made provably false claims, such as inflated vaccine death numbers that were later debunked
For example:
Kirsch has claimed that COVID vaccines have caused more deaths than all other vaccines in history, which is not supported by rigorous epidemiological analysis. Health authorities and independent researchers have repeatedly refuted this.
As a result:
Media outlets, fact-checkers, and scientific communities routinely classify Kirsch's public claims as misinformation or conspiratorial.
He is banned or restricted on platforms like LinkedIn and YouTube for violating misinformation policies.
🤔 But Is He Intentionally Lying?
There’s no hard evidence that Kirsch is intentionally deceiving people. He likely:
Believes his interpretations are valid
Distrusts traditional institutions
Is acting out of sincere (though deeply controversial) concern
However, intent does not determine credibility. Even if well-meaning, promoting misleading or false information that undermines public health can still have serious consequences.
✅ Conclusion: Is Steve Kirsch a Conspiracy Theorist?
CriterionAssessmentPromotes a belief in widespread cover-ups✅ YesUses anecdotal or cherry-picked evidence✅ FrequentlyRejects overwhelming scientific consensus✅ YesPublishes on platforms known for misinformation✅ YesHas theories not substantiated by hard data✅ YesSincerely believes what he’s saying🤷♂️ Possibly — but that doesn’t make it true
Verdict:✅ Yes — based on his pattern of argumentation and public behavior, Steve Kirsch fits the definition of a conspiracy theorist in the realm of public health and COVID-19 vaccines.
Chatgbt Corr (re most dangerous vaccine in history):
"Health authorities and independent researchers involved with or defending worldwide Genocide have repeatedly refuted this because they don't want to go to jail or be executed''.
How can I download this on my phone or computer?
So, the unanswered question which might compound Pfizer's mRNA jab dangers, compared to us 'UNJABBED' who chose to decline all/any 'Experimental' mRNA injections (called 'vaccines').
What are the % dangers of 'Heart Complications' of Moderna mRNA Experimental jabs compared to those choosing to decline ALL/ANY mRNA Experimental injections?
I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding the suggested increased risk of 'heart complications' when comparing Pfizer experimental mRNA injections with Moderna 'Experimental' mRNA injections.
Obviously, Moderna will have its own level of DANGER from accepting its mRNA version. What is the % of 'Heart Complications' following a Moderna injection?
If Pfizer mRNA jabs are 36% higher risk than Moderna mRNA jabs, then the equation must increase the % of Pfizer DANGERS by first using the Moderna level of their Vax DANGERS.
For example, if the likelihood of Heart Complications following the Moderna mRNA jab is, perhaps 25% more than remaining unjabbed, then to extrapolate the theory, Pfizer must be in the realms of 50.25% more dangerous (DEADLY) than those persons choosing to decline all such mRNA Experimental injections ('Vaccines')?
Bottom Line = All further dangerous mRNA injections should cease until they are proven SAFE and EFFECTIVE. Using independent analysis and data to reach an honest, unbiased conclusion.
The PREP ACT must be rescinded until all 'vaccine' manufacturers prove themselves honest and produce safe and viable vaccines.
LIABILITY must immediately apply to all medicines, particularly those of an aggressive, intrusive and dangerous nature = ALL EXPERIMENTAL INJECTABLES!
Unjabbed Mick (UK). We live longer!
Our fake POTUS (selected by Mr Global) and his equally fake HHS head have already said PREP will survive. And Pharma ads will continue as well. And they already approved a new mRNA for Covid injection.
What about that MAGAs?
Please translate! Thanks! Unjabbed Mick (UK). We live longer!
So, was Grok asked about the safety risks of "SAFE VACCINES"? Loaded question with a pre-determined answer.
The other anomaly, which I could not see, was - If Pfizer experimental jabs are 36% more likely to cause heart related 'complications' than Moderna - WHAT IS THE % LIKELIHOOD OF COMPLICATIONS from MODERNA compared to the 'UNJABBED'?
Assuming the number could be 25%, then if one extrapolates the equation, it seems to suggest that Pfizer jabs are 50.25% more likely to cause Heart Complications than those who decline all such jabs.
Not sure if my use of 'Heart Complications' complicates this supposition, because I could be combining all 'heart conditions' ('Myocarditis', 'Pericarditis' and 'Infarction'). Whereas, your example may only refer to one of the THREE HEART complications - not all THREE.
Unjabbed Mick (UK). Living longer unjabbed!
Every 'official' analysis tabulates adverse events that occur prior to two weeks after the second vaccination as 'unvaccinated'. It is obvious to any of us that have been paying attention, that the results of comparisons to the 'never vaccinated' would be far different. The eugenicists pushing the vaccines will never publish that, as it would reveal the true hazards that their potions bring.
So apparently, you would have us believe that the specific conclusions these authors reached are fraudulent?
Conclusions and Relevance
The findings of this cohort study suggest that there were few differences in risk of adverse events within 14 days of the first dose of either the BNT162b2 or the mRNA-1273 vaccine and small-magnitude differences within 42 days of the first dose. The 38-week risks of adverse events were LOW in both vaccine groups, although risks were lower for recipients of the mRNA-1273 vaccine than for recipients of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Although the primary analysis was designed to detect safety events unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 infection, the possibility that these differences may partially be explained by a lower effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine in preventing the sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with the mRNA-1273 vaccine could not be ruled out. These findings may help inform decision-making in future vaccination campaigns.
Anyone who would rely on an AI bot - as the very first comment to your "interpretation" pointing out "hallucinations," which you have obviously ignored - for support is either incredibly naive or purposely intent on deception. Which is it? This is yet, AGAIN, a foolish attempt to contradict established safety studies with false claims and contradictions contrary to published findings that I do not believe the original authors were consulted with, nor would they agree with. I have a good mind to contact them directly to share your skewed misinformation of their copyrighted work and to seek their opinion directly.
I'm confused though. Didn't the Czech data point in the opposite direction showing that Moderna had a higher adverse event rate than Pfizer? I don't understand why Pfizer side effects look worse in this data. Wasn't the Moderna dose >3x that of Pfizer?
Just a heads up for people, it looks like the unbiased AI stated it had some trouble retrieving the paper so there is potential for hallucinations.
Steve here's what's wrong with the Czech Data:
Why You Can't Use Czech COVID-19 Data for Death Rate Studies Fri Sep 19 14:14:48 2025
Intro
Over the last few years, two big sets of info from the Czech Republic have been going around in discussions about COVID-19 death rates and vaccine safety. Some folks have used these files, called the old data and new data, like they're official death records from the government. But really, you can't trust either of these sets of data for looking at death rates. They both have big problems with where the data came from and how it's put together, so they're not good for figuring out death rates for the whole population or how vaccines work.
The New Data
This Czech data is supposed to be about everyone in the country, but where it came from tells a different story. Instead of being from the official census or population records, it's mostly from health insurance records. Basically, it's from the National Register of Reimbursed Health Services (NRHZS), plus records of diseases and vaccines. This might have info on shots, but it's not the same as official death data from the census. Using insurance data messes things up a lot. Insurance can include people who don't live there permanently, like foreign workers, visitors, or temporary residents. When you mix them into data that's supposed to be about the whole Czech population, you get inflated numbers and tons of records that are questionable. Instead of showing the real population, the data becomes a mix of citizens, residents, and insured folks just passing through. Also, it looks like the insurance data was mixed with census or registry files in a messy way. It seems like they just did a cartesian join combined everything without being careful, which makes records multiply and creates duplicates. That's why the data has significantly more records than the actual Czech population. Mixing like this might keep the vaccine info, but it ruins the data for death rate stats. If you treat this data like it's a proper population count, you're going to be wrong. The worst part is that you can't even find and get rid of the bad records.
The Old Data
The old data isn't any better. People say it's from the Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic (ÚZIS), but it's not clear where the data really came from. It looks like ÚZIS started with census data but then had to add in the insurance files for vaccine details. Again, the mixing and merging messes the files up. So, this file is also partly from insurance, and it has the same issues as the new data like uncertain population numbers, possible duplicates, and non-residents. Even without knowing exactly where it came from, there are weird things in the file like strange death counts and problems across different groups of people. This makes it clear that you can't trust it for death rate studies.
Why Neither Set of Data Works for Death Rate Studies
The main issue is that people think these files are like official population records, but they're not. Census offices don't gather vaccine info. To make these files, health insurance records had to be combined with other sources. But the combinations weren't done well, and the result is not a complete census file or a good sample. It's a mix of data with unknown problems and millions of fake records. Because of all this, both the old and new Czech data are no good for death rate studies. They can't give you accurate numbers for population death rates, and they can't back up good comparisons of vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Any study that treats them like real data about the Czech population is going to give you the wrong answers.
In Conclusion the misuse of these Czech datasets shows a bigger issue in COVID-19 studies: the urge to treat any big set of data as the truth, no matter where it came from or how it's put together. If you don't carefully check where the data came from, how it was combined, and who it covers, then any results you get are meaningless. In this case, the problems are so bad that both sets of data need to be thrown out for death rate studies. Keeping on using them just keeps the mistakes going.
Because the other 64% had a different jab or mixed and matched or were shot but not yet 2 weeks in so it didn't count or were not up to date so it didn't count or was not recognized as being linked to shots or Doc. Tried to enter the data and it just didn't work out or was disqualified or something something....
Is that a one time 36% or anually?
DON'T TAKE THE JAB!
I like death dart better 🥲