It is interesting that the article reviewed used Czech data from 2019 as a baseline.
I very likely had my first Covid episode at the end of November, 2019. The Wuhan World Military Games, earlier in the fall of 2019, were probably one vector for worldwide dissemination of the virus.
There are multiple reports of the distributed finding of Covid-19 infection and recovery from earlier 2019. I find all research from this era difficult to assess as the authors all seem to believe that Covid started in early 2020.
If I had been asked to review this paper (so far nobody has ever asked me to do so!) I might have asked that the 2018 baseline be presented. I would expect them to have been remarkably similar as Covid before the plandemic and fear-mongering was difficult to see as different from influenza or a cold. Even so, I remain sceptical with studies using 2019 as a "No-Covid" years for statistical purposes.
‘Curious, Watson. The very name Pfizer, with its old-style letterform in its official logo, with the old English ‘long s’ as the f, hides the Greek Psi in plain sight. The clue was before us all along.’
After realising the devastating results of mRNA injections, ONE deadly jab is now too many!
VACCINES prove to increase AUTISM! The worst example is when mRNA 'Vax' technology is used!
Poisonous mRNA jabs (called 'VACCINES') are the worst health disaster in living memory, but the dangerous mRNA formulation is still being promoted for PROFIT and to DEPOPULATE the Planet!
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) is proving to be 70% higher in occurrence within 7 days of babies being poisoned with potentially deadly mRNA injections. Mums - Jon the dots and STOP!
Nobody ever seems to mention the 'currently immeasurable' SHORTENED LIFE EXPECTANCY caused by these deadly Pfizer, Moderna, etc, mRNA depopulation injections.
Probably, because only history will eventually produce the stats showing that so many 'VAXXED' muppets have died at an earlier age than us 'UNVAXXED'. This fact will take decades to emerge!
No wonder Big Pharma desperately guard their 'LICENCE to KILL' (Zero LIABILITY) clause.
Thanks to Steve Kirsch, we have another study containing damning data proving the actual health impact(s) from receiving a Covid 19 shot. Surprisingly ‘I’m not surprised.’ For everyone now looking at the entire debacle with a critical eye I would wager the marketing phrase “Safe and Effective” will cause a reflexive response of skepticism. When you think about it, truth is the cure to the tyranny from the worst purveyors of capitalism. The fact is, we were killed for profit and other reasons.
You pointed out how the Mirror of Erised paper said: "the risk of death from non-COVID causes was up to five times lower among vaccinated individuals during periods with negligible COVID-19 mortality". They referred to Figure 1 and Figure 2, which showed people born in 1940-1949 only. In other age groups the peak ratio between unvaccinated and vaccinated mortality was not as high.
If you look at all ages in the NZIP data, the weekly ratio between unvaccinated and vaccinated ASMR peaks at about 4 in the second quarter of 2021, but even that is partially because of COVID deaths during the Alpha wave: https://sars2.net/rootclaim4.html#Cumulative_deaths_in_ages_below_80. And in the FOI data, the monthly ratio of unvaccinated to vaccinated ASMR peaks at only about 3.4 in May 2021:
The ratio between unvaccinated and vaccinated ASMR gets lower over time as the short-term HVE wears out, so the ratio outside COVID waves follows a curve akin to an exponential decay. Judging from the trend in the curve during low-COVID periods, the ratio would've been about 1.9 at the time of the Delta wave if there were no COVID deaths.
You wrote that the 5-fold difference in mortality was because of the "static healthy vaccinee effect". But among people born in 1940-1949, there's only a short period after the vaccine rollout when unvaccinated people temporarily have about 5 times higher CMR than vaccinated people, and it's because of the short-term / dynamic HVE, and not static HVE. During the weeks before the Delta wave, the ratio had dropped down to about 2.5 in ages 70-79: https://sars2.net/rootclaim3.html#Estimate_of_lives_saved_by_vaccines_in_winter_2021_2022_based_on_all_cause_mortality. And after the Delta wave the ratio stabilizes around the level of 2. So in ages 70-79, I would say that the asymptotic ratio of 2 is the ratio due to the "static HVE". But the asymptotic ratio is lower in both older and younger ages.
---
You wrote: "But COVID is also a non-proportional hazard (NPH) where your risk of dying from COVID is hyper-proportional to your mortality risk. See Fig 3 in [Assessing the age specificity of infection fatality rates for COVID-19: systematic review, meta-analysis, and public policy implications](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7721859/) where the curve is steeper than normal mortality."
Young people have a high percentage of deaths from external causes out of all deaths. For example in 2020-2023 in the United States, deaths with underlying cause COVID accounted for about 2% of all deaths in ages 20-29 but 8% of all deaths in ages 80-89: https://sars2.net/rootclaim5.html#COVID_and_all_cause_mortality_rates_by_age. But deaths from natural causes (A-Q or U07.1) accounted for about 96% of deaths in ages 80-79 but only 24% of deaths in ages 20-29. So COVID accounted for about 10% of all deaths from natural causes in ages 20-29 but only about 8% of deaths in ages 80-89.
---
You wrote: "This is why when Arbel reported a 90% vaccine efficacy, Hoeg pointed out, 'well, the unvaccinated were dying at 10x the rate of the vaccinated during NON-COVID.' Arbel refused to address the accusation and instead said, 'But our models show the vaccine is effective.'"
Arbel's study didn't compare vaccinated people against unvaccinated people, but people with a booster against people without a booster.
In order to calculate her non-COVID mortality rates, Hoeg used Arbel's COVID mortality rates to reverse engineer the person-days for the booster and nonbooster groups. But her person-years were wrong because Arbel calculated the CMR values wrong, because people who got a booster did not contribute person-days to the nonbooster group before they got a booster dose: https://sars2.net/rootclaim3.html#Israeli_study_by_Arbel_et_al_about_mortality_in_people_with_and_without_a_booster_dose.
Arbel's paper says: "A total of 843,208 participants met the eligibility criteria, of whom 758,118 (90%) received the booster during the 54-day study period. Death due to Covid-19 occurred in 65 participants in the booster group (0.16 per 100,000 persons per day) and in 137 participants in the nonbooster group (2.98 per 100,000 persons per day)." [https://www.nejm.org/doi/abs/10.1056/NEJMoa2115624] If you divide the COVID deaths by the COVID deaths per person-days, you get about 4,597,315 person-days for the nonbooster group (from 137/2.98*1e5) and about 40,625,000 person-days for the booster group (from 65/0.16*1e5). So the non-booster group accounts for only about 10.2% of total person-days, which is nearly the same as the percentage of participants who did not get a booster during the study period, which is about 10.1% (1-758118/843208).
Arbel's response to Høeg said: "With regard to a potential healthy vaccinee bias, all participants in our study started at an 'unboosted' status, which was changed to a 'boosted' status 7 days after vaccination, and 9 of 10 participants contributed follow-up data in both statuses (i.e., to both the booster group and the nonbooster group)." (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2306683) The study lasted for 54 days, so 7 days was about 13% of the entire period of the study. So if people would've contributed person-days to the nonbooster group for the 7-day period, it would've been impossible for the nonbooster group to account for only about 10.2% of total person-days.
---
You wrote: "The Palinkas study in Hungary accidentally revealed in Fig 1 and Fig 2 that the unvaccinated did equally well as the vaccinated during COVID and non-COVID periods." But Figures 1 and 2 were not adjusted for age or other confounders. Table S1 shows that in the COVID period, the average age was about 46 years for unvaccinated people and 56 for fully vaccinated people: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9319484/.
Table 2 shows that the HR of Pfizer relative to unvaccinated people was about 0.20 in the COVID period and 0.38 in the low-COVID period (even though part of the difference is because the COVID period was before the low-COVID period, so the HVE was stronger in the COVID period).
"People who decided not to take the vaccine have a much higher mortality rate than people who choose to opt to take the vaccine" This is the opposite of what I expected. I'll have to re-read. Thank you, Steve.
The alarming news is how many people have hospitalised due to the injection? I estomate that for every person who died there are another 100 hospitalised and who required life saving intevention, or could be still suffering. Cancer is only one example. Funnily, I recall an old woman screaming at me when I passed her in an anti-vax march. She said we would fill up the hospitals and prevent people getting other treatments. I yelled back at her that it will the vaxxed that clog the hospitals. And the funeral homes it appears.
What is HVE and NPH? I can't keep up with all the acronyms.
Two of my three young adults took 3 jabs. One took Moderna and the other took Pfizer. They seem to be okay so far, but so worried about what’s to come in the future for them. I really hope and pray there were placebos or duds.
Why have you not gone before any COVID Congressional review…study after study shows how bad the vac was/is then why is it still available and clear by FDA…. In the least this is a black box drug/gene manipulation/ full of DNA fragments.
When is the US going to follow the Czech lead and Make Accessible Data Again?
Thank you for your work 🙏
Stay on em Steve!
It is interesting that the article reviewed used Czech data from 2019 as a baseline.
I very likely had my first Covid episode at the end of November, 2019. The Wuhan World Military Games, earlier in the fall of 2019, were probably one vector for worldwide dissemination of the virus.
There are multiple reports of the distributed finding of Covid-19 infection and recovery from earlier 2019. I find all research from this era difficult to assess as the authors all seem to believe that Covid started in early 2020.
If I had been asked to review this paper (so far nobody has ever asked me to do so!) I might have asked that the 2018 baseline be presented. I would expect them to have been remarkably similar as Covid before the plandemic and fear-mongering was difficult to see as different from influenza or a cold. Even so, I remain sceptical with studies using 2019 as a "No-Covid" years for statistical purposes.
‘Curious, Watson. The very name Pfizer, with its old-style letterform in its official logo, with the old English ‘long s’ as the f, hides the Greek Psi in plain sight. The clue was before us all along.’
After realising the devastating results of mRNA injections, ONE deadly jab is now too many!
VACCINES prove to increase AUTISM! The worst example is when mRNA 'Vax' technology is used!
Poisonous mRNA jabs (called 'VACCINES') are the worst health disaster in living memory, but the dangerous mRNA formulation is still being promoted for PROFIT and to DEPOPULATE the Planet!
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) is proving to be 70% higher in occurrence within 7 days of babies being poisoned with potentially deadly mRNA injections. Mums - Jon the dots and STOP!
Nobody ever seems to mention the 'currently immeasurable' SHORTENED LIFE EXPECTANCY caused by these deadly Pfizer, Moderna, etc, mRNA depopulation injections.
Probably, because only history will eventually produce the stats showing that so many 'VAXXED' muppets have died at an earlier age than us 'UNVAXXED'. This fact will take decades to emerge!
No wonder Big Pharma desperately guard their 'LICENCE to KILL' (Zero LIABILITY) clause.
Unjabbed Mick (UK). We live longer!
Thanks to Steve Kirsch, we have another study containing damning data proving the actual health impact(s) from receiving a Covid 19 shot. Surprisingly ‘I’m not surprised.’ For everyone now looking at the entire debacle with a critical eye I would wager the marketing phrase “Safe and Effective” will cause a reflexive response of skepticism. When you think about it, truth is the cure to the tyranny from the worst purveyors of capitalism. The fact is, we were killed for profit and other reasons.
You pointed out how the Mirror of Erised paper said: "the risk of death from non-COVID causes was up to five times lower among vaccinated individuals during periods with negligible COVID-19 mortality". They referred to Figure 1 and Figure 2, which showed people born in 1940-1949 only. In other age groups the peak ratio between unvaccinated and vaccinated mortality was not as high.
If you look at all ages in the NZIP data, the weekly ratio between unvaccinated and vaccinated ASMR peaks at about 4 in the second quarter of 2021, but even that is partially because of COVID deaths during the Alpha wave: https://sars2.net/rootclaim4.html#Cumulative_deaths_in_ages_below_80. And in the FOI data, the monthly ratio of unvaccinated to vaccinated ASMR peaks at only about 3.4 in May 2021:
t=fread("https://sars2.net/f/czbuckets.csv.gz")
ages=c(0,2:19*5)
t[,age:=ages[findInterval(age,ages)]]
a=t[,.(dead=sum(dead),pop=sum(alive)),.(month,dose=pmin(dose,1),age)]
a[,std:=tapply(pop,age,sum)[factor(age)]/sum(pop)]
asmr=a[,sum(dead/pop*std*365e5),.(month,dose)]
asmr[,.(ratio=V1[dose==0]/V1[dose==1]),month]
The ratio between unvaccinated and vaccinated ASMR gets lower over time as the short-term HVE wears out, so the ratio outside COVID waves follows a curve akin to an exponential decay. Judging from the trend in the curve during low-COVID periods, the ratio would've been about 1.9 at the time of the Delta wave if there were no COVID deaths.
You wrote that the 5-fold difference in mortality was because of the "static healthy vaccinee effect". But among people born in 1940-1949, there's only a short period after the vaccine rollout when unvaccinated people temporarily have about 5 times higher CMR than vaccinated people, and it's because of the short-term / dynamic HVE, and not static HVE. During the weeks before the Delta wave, the ratio had dropped down to about 2.5 in ages 70-79: https://sars2.net/rootclaim3.html#Estimate_of_lives_saved_by_vaccines_in_winter_2021_2022_based_on_all_cause_mortality. And after the Delta wave the ratio stabilizes around the level of 2. So in ages 70-79, I would say that the asymptotic ratio of 2 is the ratio due to the "static HVE". But the asymptotic ratio is lower in both older and younger ages.
---
You wrote: "But COVID is also a non-proportional hazard (NPH) where your risk of dying from COVID is hyper-proportional to your mortality risk. See Fig 3 in [Assessing the age specificity of infection fatality rates for COVID-19: systematic review, meta-analysis, and public policy implications](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7721859/) where the curve is steeper than normal mortality."
Young people have a high percentage of deaths from external causes out of all deaths. For example in 2020-2023 in the United States, deaths with underlying cause COVID accounted for about 2% of all deaths in ages 20-29 but 8% of all deaths in ages 80-89: https://sars2.net/rootclaim5.html#COVID_and_all_cause_mortality_rates_by_age. But deaths from natural causes (A-Q or U07.1) accounted for about 96% of deaths in ages 80-79 but only 24% of deaths in ages 20-29. So COVID accounted for about 10% of all deaths from natural causes in ages 20-29 but only about 8% of deaths in ages 80-89.
---
You wrote: "This is why when Arbel reported a 90% vaccine efficacy, Hoeg pointed out, 'well, the unvaccinated were dying at 10x the rate of the vaccinated during NON-COVID.' Arbel refused to address the accusation and instead said, 'But our models show the vaccine is effective.'"
Arbel's study didn't compare vaccinated people against unvaccinated people, but people with a booster against people without a booster.
In order to calculate her non-COVID mortality rates, Hoeg used Arbel's COVID mortality rates to reverse engineer the person-days for the booster and nonbooster groups. But her person-years were wrong because Arbel calculated the CMR values wrong, because people who got a booster did not contribute person-days to the nonbooster group before they got a booster dose: https://sars2.net/rootclaim3.html#Israeli_study_by_Arbel_et_al_about_mortality_in_people_with_and_without_a_booster_dose.
Arbel's paper says: "A total of 843,208 participants met the eligibility criteria, of whom 758,118 (90%) received the booster during the 54-day study period. Death due to Covid-19 occurred in 65 participants in the booster group (0.16 per 100,000 persons per day) and in 137 participants in the nonbooster group (2.98 per 100,000 persons per day)." [https://www.nejm.org/doi/abs/10.1056/NEJMoa2115624] If you divide the COVID deaths by the COVID deaths per person-days, you get about 4,597,315 person-days for the nonbooster group (from 137/2.98*1e5) and about 40,625,000 person-days for the booster group (from 65/0.16*1e5). So the non-booster group accounts for only about 10.2% of total person-days, which is nearly the same as the percentage of participants who did not get a booster during the study period, which is about 10.1% (1-758118/843208).
Arbel's response to Høeg said: "With regard to a potential healthy vaccinee bias, all participants in our study started at an 'unboosted' status, which was changed to a 'boosted' status 7 days after vaccination, and 9 of 10 participants contributed follow-up data in both statuses (i.e., to both the booster group and the nonbooster group)." (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2306683) The study lasted for 54 days, so 7 days was about 13% of the entire period of the study. So if people would've contributed person-days to the nonbooster group for the 7-day period, it would've been impossible for the nonbooster group to account for only about 10.2% of total person-days.
---
You wrote: "The Palinkas study in Hungary accidentally revealed in Fig 1 and Fig 2 that the unvaccinated did equally well as the vaccinated during COVID and non-COVID periods." But Figures 1 and 2 were not adjusted for age or other confounders. Table S1 shows that in the COVID period, the average age was about 46 years for unvaccinated people and 56 for fully vaccinated people: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9319484/.
Table 2 shows that the HR of Pfizer relative to unvaccinated people was about 0.20 in the COVID period and 0.38 in the low-COVID period (even though part of the difference is because the COVID period was before the low-COVID period, so the HVE was stronger in the COVID period).
"Three things cannot long be hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth."
- Confucius
There is no such thing as a safe and effective vaccine. There are ALWAYS risks.
"People who decided not to take the vaccine have a much higher mortality rate than people who choose to opt to take the vaccine" This is the opposite of what I expected. I'll have to re-read. Thank you, Steve.
Can you explain the point 1? Where those who did not take the vaccine had a much higher mortality rate?? I did not understand that.
The alarming news is how many people have hospitalised due to the injection? I estomate that for every person who died there are another 100 hospitalised and who required life saving intevention, or could be still suffering. Cancer is only one example. Funnily, I recall an old woman screaming at me when I passed her in an anti-vax march. She said we would fill up the hospitals and prevent people getting other treatments. I yelled back at her that it will the vaxxed that clog the hospitals. And the funeral homes it appears.
Brilliant work Mr. Kirsch. What data would you need to run the program in NZ, or Australia?
date of birth, death, and vaccination. that's it. they have the data. they will never run the algorithm.
What is HVE and NPH? I can't keep up with all the acronyms.
Two of my three young adults took 3 jabs. One took Moderna and the other took Pfizer. They seem to be okay so far, but so worried about what’s to come in the future for them. I really hope and pray there were placebos or duds.
It's in the article: "healthy vaccinee effect (HVE) and non-proportional hazards (NPH)".
Thank you. I didn’t pick up on that.
Why have you not gone before any COVID Congressional review…study after study shows how bad the vac was/is then why is it still available and clear by FDA…. In the least this is a black box drug/gene manipulation/ full of DNA fragments.