From 'Fact Check' to 'Czech Fact' in one easy move.
We have a new government in the UK - same kind of evil, incompetent or inexperienced numpty as the last one, but with a different coloured rosette. Our latest PM is on record as saying he prefers Davos to Westminster, was personally responsible for the incarceration of Julian Assange and has appointed Patrick Vallance as chief scientific adviser to the government, despite his royally ridiculous track record.
What will the government's priority be with regard to this irrefutable data? It seems they want to ban smoking & suppress the spread of the data & any interpretation of its meaning. You can't make it up . . . but they can.
The insane, upside down & clown world that we now live in is getting me down so, for the first time years, I'm popping out to buy a packet of fags. They'll probably turn out to be good for me after all.
It's a 'Czech Mate' against Moderna and Pfizer. There's enough data mined now, and plenty of anecdotal evidence. We are the pawns that the UK government ( and US, EU) want to move around to maximise profit and control as well as injuring ( often fatal outcomes) and demoralising.
We must never let them see we are down, and, the work done by Dr Craig, Mr Kirsch, Joel Smalley, Norman Fenton, Mike Yeadon and many others always keep hope flickering. All across the world research in to these essentially harmful injections is being done.....'one size does not fit all' as 'they' have insisted was the case re the alleged deadly -to -all virus. All these researchers have passed on their knowledge, and, we the readers have passed it on to family and friends, as best we can.
I'd raise a glass of red wine or two for their continuing efforts...not a smoker.
From memory, wasn't moderna's dosage supposed to be higher than Pfizer? Maybe it's not the nature of the poison (poison they all indeed are) but the quantity.
It's like looking at another health outcome associated with daily cola consumption.
If an analysis compared consumption of Coca-Cola product and a Pepsi product where the Coca-Cola product had 3x times the sugar of the Pepsi product - and reported a higher weight gain among the Coca-Cola consumers - what should the headline be?
Yes, although every Covid jab is the same that originated from the same factory in China there is many different dose combinations of Reduced Graphene Ferrous Oxide & Metals. My mother's two dear friends developed aggressive stage 4 Cancers in 4-6 weeks after the second jab and both died 8 & 11 months after. Dr Daniel Negassa from Canada along with other doctors and scientists have analysed the Covid vials and found Thullium a Radio Active Isotope that I believe killed my mum's two best friends. I suspect Thullium is not in all of them just a small amount per batch. Scientist Dr Poornima Wagh and her team have found over 35 different dose combinations of Graphene & Metals.
Why aren't these being correctly identified as mRNA TRANSFECTIONS and decades old failed cancer therapy? Epic fail because human immune systems NEVER tolerate foreign proteins & always deadly by design explained by phenomenal drug designer Dr. Mike Yeadon!
So sad… 8 family members of mine died after taking the Covid jabs. They were all in good health & NEVER HAD COVID..
I don’t understand why NO ONE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THESE KILLINGS. We need FAUCI & GATES Behind bars!!! And all the others at CDC to be arrested & prosecuted.
"Unless someone can provide compelling evidence of Moderna having been given to those more likely to die in every age group and throughout the time period then this is compelling evidence that it was more deadly."
Such evidence (if it could be found) might involve Moderna being given to the following populations at higher rates:
Care home residents, mental health patients, hosptial patients, homeless, pregnant women, and military
The question for the younger groups in particular is "in what setting/context were younger adults receiving the shot?"
I would also like to see the same kind of data with flu shot status
I am sure that those who gave up their lives (rather unwillingly) are at peace knowing that not all big pharma thugs (or drugs) are as deadly as others. Factoid you are likely to ignore: 95% of big pharma drugs are poisons and the other 5% you do not want to take.
Morris is correct that confounding could potentially explain such results. But to assume it is the case is the standard hand-waving. Assumed safe until proven deadly is the mainstream motto. The study he cites doesn't seem convincing. Those background differences between pfizer and moderna recipients seem too slight to my eyes.
What makes you think the vaccines were "distributed randomly" and that there is no relevant confounding between vaccination groups?
Also, why is it that the fact that Moderna death rates were higher than Pfizer death rates means "Moderna is dangerous" and killing people?
If you look at unvaccinated death rates in this same population, it is higher than the Moderna death rates consistently across age groups, and also if you look at actuarial baseline death rates for these age groups you see that the Moderna death rates are not greater than the baseline death rates.
When taking into consideration the unvaccinated death rates and actuarial baseline death rates, the dominant result is not that Moderna had "high" death rate, but rather that Pfizer had very low death rates relative to unvaccinated and the other vaccine groups as well.
Regardless, it is difficult to see how someone can make a cogent argument that these data suggest vaccines cause high death rates when all of it is taken into account.
Here is my x.com thread presenting this analysis and showing these results, and I have the analysis scripts and links to data set so anyone interested can ask me and I'll send to them to reproduce and critique my results or edit to do their own analyses. If interested reach out to me on @jsm2334
The overall mortality in the vaccinated population is HALF of the historic baseline.
That is not because of the vaccine.
There are huge numbers of confounders between the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations which have been repeatedly referenced as a reason not to compare these groups.
This analysis avoids that problem.
I am assuming the vaccines were distributed randomly because there is no evidence to assume otherwise. For 25-70 year olds the proportion of moderna to pfizer was equal for each age group. If moderna were targeted to those likely to die that consisitent distribution would not be seen.
There is more variation over time in older age groups.
It is not half the historic baseline -- see my analysis and plots. I include the 2015-2019 average actuarial values for baseline deaths (and as I have repeatedly suggested, you should overlay them on your plots to provide some context).
The vaccinated death rates are for most age groups 10-25% below the historical levels, while the unvaccinated death rates are between 15-35% above historical levels such that the combined group is not far from historical baseline levels.
And as I have repeatedly stated, I agree that there is confounding between vaccinated and unvaccinated, which is why one cannot make any causal statements at all from these data event thought they are entire population data.
But the confounding is not limited to vaccinated and unvaccinated, of course. The different vaccine brand groups also have confounding. This data set shows strongly different age distributions (which can be accounted for by age stratification), but unfortunately the data set does not have information on other confounders so this cannot be investigated or taken into account, which is why one also cannot make any causal statements about vaccines by comparing the different brands (as you and Steve are trying to do).
Another nearby eastern European nation (Hungary) also has full-population level data posted by vaccination status, and in supplementary table S1 of their paper they compare the various vaccination brands with respect to key confounders like comorbidities and find ENORMOUS differences -- with all comorbidities differing strongly between vaccine dose groups with p<<0.001 levels. I have posted a link to these data and a screen shot of the table in my tweet (https://x.com/jsm2334/status/1813674788432314813)
Sadly we can't produce this table for the Czech data since they don't share comorbidities or other confounder levels. But this goes to show how strong the confounding between brands can be and CERTAINLY establishes the assumption you and Steve are trying to make that the Moderna and Pfizer groups are comparable with virtually no confounding (once age stratified) and thus any difference between them consitutes causal vaccine effects is completely invalid.
All you can do in comparing vaccination brand groups together (or comparing unvaccinated to vaccinated groups) is to provide a descriptive summary, and discuss potential factors explaining the difference, which includes causal vaccine effects as well as confounder effects.
You can't use the argument "I can assume there is no confounding because there is no evidence of confounding" -- that is invalid scientifically (and you should really know that) -- especially when the data set lacks any information on confounders so it is impossible to get any such evidence.
Some data sets have extensive confounders measured, and then we can use any of a number of more rigorous design/analysis tools to try to adjust for them and get a better estimate of vaccine effects.
But even then, we have to be careful about interpretation and investigate the potential of unmeasured/residual confounders.
But as you say, in this data set we have no confounders other than age/sex and so can't even begin to investigate or try to adjust. Thus we can only do basic descriptive analysis that must be intepreted softly since there is no way to know how much of the difference is from vaccine effects vs. confounder effects.
If you are saying we can't trust any study on the vaccine because of confounders you are also saying Dr. Craig's statement that Moderna is "deadlier" also can't be trusted.
It's not that you can't trust observational studies because of confounding.
It's just that you have to aware that confounding is always an issue with observational studies so you should carefully and cautiously interpret the results
(which Dr. Craig and Mr. Kirsch have not done in this case -- they recklessly allege these data show Moderna is a "kill shot" and that the difference between Moderna and Pfizer is driven by vaccine-caused deaths without any evidence or acknowledgement of potential confounders.
I've always assumed this would be the case given the higher dose. But the flip side is that virtually all the observational studies showed that, to the degree that these vaccines had any efficacy, Moderna was more effective and its efficacy was more durable. Per Nordström, et al., for instance, 6 months after vaccination, the efficacy of Moderna was twice that of Pfizer-BioNTech. So, risk/benefit would remain roughly the same, aka equally shitty. This has always been the odd things about all the talk about the observed greater risk of Moderna. What about benefit? That's never mentioned.
And, secondly, many of the studies supposedly showing the greater toxicity of Moderna turn out to contain surprises when one digs a bit deeper. You and your Hart colleagues uncovered one huge surprise, for instance, in the famous Oxford myocarditis study: namely, that the raw data showed 49 myocarditis deaths for Pfizer-BioNTech and *zero* for Moderna. (https://www.hartgroup.org/myocarditis-began-with-vaccine-rollout/)
The Pfizer-BNT sample was undoubtedly far larger. I would guess 10 times larger. But 49-0 is 49-0. And that little gem was hidden in the published paper, which, of course, suggested that the myocarditis risk from Moderna was far higher.
I suspect "efficacy" in suppressing symptoms for a little while. In the case of Moderna, a little while longer. That was the only thing that was really tested in the clinical trials. I agree, of course, that that is virtually completely irrelevant. But those were the rules of the game. It was very odd that when all the Moderna bad/"Pfizer" good studies started coming out, they totally ignored even this efficacy. The only parties whose interests this served were BioNTech and Pfizer, which became the fall-back "vaccine" for the entire Western world essentially per the argument: it won't help you but it will kill you less. And many supposed dissidents happily jumped on this bandwagon. For instance, Vinay Prasad did. He was positively *recommending* Pfizer jabs for young people.
But the case definition used in the clinical trials was not based just on symptoms. It was symptoms (of a cold) plus a positive Covid test. When looking at symptoms alone, the data was entirely different.
Yes, agree. Let's say "symptoms of Covid" with "Covid" here defined as just whatever induces a positive PCR. But you say when looking at symptoms alone, the data was entirely different. Do we know that's the case for Moderna? We do know it, thanks to Doshi, for BioNTech-Pfizer. Did Moderna also have so many "suspected but unconfirmed" cases? I don't know. I know that Moderna did not cull its data the way BioNTech-Pfizer did, excluding 6x more participants from the vax arm than from the placebo arm.
This is my point and was the point of my original article here: https://edv1694.substack.com/p/a-theory-on-pfizer-biontech-fraud Pfizer and BioNTech quite simply cheated in order to get their efficacy numbers in the clinical trials with its famously low dose. Moderna used a high dose and really hit mark (its being granted that it was a ridiculous target to set to begin with). For dissidents, to say well look Moderna is more toxic without saying anything about this is to legitimate the fraud.
Note from the discussion between Clare and Jeffrey Morris elsewhere in these comments that this data actually shows the vaccines *were* effective. The unvaccinated have the worst mortality numbers. This is typical. All the Moderna bad/"Pfizer" good studies are like this. They are poison pills for the opposition. Kirsch apparently tries to spin that Pfizer is also bad but less bad. But this does not appear to be what the data shows.
The Oxford study was the same: it actually showed that "the virus" caused more myocarditis than the Pfizer-BNT vax. What complete and utter bullshit. Having lived through 2020 and 2021, anyone reading that conclusion ought to have immediately thrown the study in the garbage. But much of the supposed opposition was lapping it up and helping to increase BioNTech's and Pfizer's sales.
Efficacy vs severe disease and death from the Covid, a novel virus that indisputably was the driver of excess mortality starting in 2020, pre-vaccines.
But in these same data if you look, the unvaccinated death rates are much higher than Moderna.
So it is difficult for them to support their narrative that these differences are driven by vaccine induced deaths if they acknowledge rather than ignore the unvaccinated death rates from these same data.
I think the vaccinated died because there is something in their physical makeup & psyche that made them more vulnerable to being harmed - I think there was a fear of being harmed causing them even more stress whilst they are already in a state of high stress. I believe their immune systems were already compromised due to high cortisone levels perhaps because they were self absorbed, self focussed & anxious … therefore blood pressure high, leading perhaps to heart attacks / strokes. Cancers able to take hold because of the change in the cell nuclei & no immune system to fight it... I’m just putting it out there.
From 'Fact Check' to 'Czech Fact' in one easy move.
We have a new government in the UK - same kind of evil, incompetent or inexperienced numpty as the last one, but with a different coloured rosette. Our latest PM is on record as saying he prefers Davos to Westminster, was personally responsible for the incarceration of Julian Assange and has appointed Patrick Vallance as chief scientific adviser to the government, despite his royally ridiculous track record.
What will the government's priority be with regard to this irrefutable data? It seems they want to ban smoking & suppress the spread of the data & any interpretation of its meaning. You can't make it up . . . but they can.
The insane, upside down & clown world that we now live in is getting me down so, for the first time years, I'm popping out to buy a packet of fags. They'll probably turn out to be good for me after all.
they will make sure their data is not public exposed under any circumstances.
Great work Steve, well done
100%
It's a 'Czech Mate' against Moderna and Pfizer. There's enough data mined now, and plenty of anecdotal evidence. We are the pawns that the UK government ( and US, EU) want to move around to maximise profit and control as well as injuring ( often fatal outcomes) and demoralising.
We must never let them see we are down, and, the work done by Dr Craig, Mr Kirsch, Joel Smalley, Norman Fenton, Mike Yeadon and many others always keep hope flickering. All across the world research in to these essentially harmful injections is being done.....'one size does not fit all' as 'they' have insisted was the case re the alleged deadly -to -all virus. All these researchers have passed on their knowledge, and, we the readers have passed it on to family and friends, as best we can.
I'd raise a glass of red wine or two for their continuing efforts...not a smoker.
❤️ 👏
Loving your work. Cannot thank you enough. I wish you were my Doctor.
From memory, wasn't moderna's dosage supposed to be higher than Pfizer? Maybe it's not the nature of the poison (poison they all indeed are) but the quantity.
Indeed, Moderna is three times the dose of Pfizer.
In that case, the emphasis on the brands per se is misplaced, no?
How so?
It's like looking at another health outcome associated with daily cola consumption.
If an analysis compared consumption of Coca-Cola product and a Pepsi product where the Coca-Cola product had 3x times the sugar of the Pepsi product - and reported a higher weight gain among the Coca-Cola consumers - what should the headline be?
Oh dear - what an absolute sh*tstorm! Good work, Steve and Clare!
Yes, although every Covid jab is the same that originated from the same factory in China there is many different dose combinations of Reduced Graphene Ferrous Oxide & Metals. My mother's two dear friends developed aggressive stage 4 Cancers in 4-6 weeks after the second jab and both died 8 & 11 months after. Dr Daniel Negassa from Canada along with other doctors and scientists have analysed the Covid vials and found Thullium a Radio Active Isotope that I believe killed my mum's two best friends. I suspect Thullium is not in all of them just a small amount per batch. Scientist Dr Poornima Wagh and her team have found over 35 different dose combinations of Graphene & Metals.
Surely better to compare vaccine mortality using vaxed v unvaxed data? This is a comparison of one dangerous product v another.
Surely this will hide the dangerous effect of accepting a COVID (or indeed any) vaccine product?
We don't want to hide the effect.
People need to understand that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective.
What am I missing here Claire?
Thanks 🙏
Read my substack article which talks about why the unvaccinated death rate is problematic. https://kirschsubstack.com/p/breaking-record-level-data-from-czech
Maybe they should look at the Amish. They seem to be a control group for a lot of other things.
Thanks Steve. Found the relevant section and yes, understood.
Shame that extracting the unvaccinated data is so problematic, that signal would be massive.
Congrats on a good article BTW.
Better analysis
https://sars2.net/czech.html
Why aren't these being correctly identified as mRNA TRANSFECTIONS and decades old failed cancer therapy? Epic fail because human immune systems NEVER tolerate foreign proteins & always deadly by design explained by phenomenal drug designer Dr. Mike Yeadon!
https://rumble.com/v4kc73l-dr-mike-yeadon.html
NYTimes 1999 - Biotech death of Jesse Gelsinger https://web.archive.org/web/20121025034826/https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/28/magazine/the-biotech-death-of-jesse-gelsinger.html
Today is the 2nd anniversary of my Mom's death. Moderna killed my Mom.
I am sorry to hear that.
Not the article you wanted to read today.
Take care.
So sad… 8 family members of mine died after taking the Covid jabs. They were all in good health & NEVER HAD COVID..
I don’t understand why NO ONE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THESE KILLINGS. We need FAUCI & GATES Behind bars!!! And all the others at CDC to be arrested & prosecuted.
Not an anniversary any one wants for a family member. Must be hard to come to terms with.
"Unless someone can provide compelling evidence of Moderna having been given to those more likely to die in every age group and throughout the time period then this is compelling evidence that it was more deadly."
Such evidence (if it could be found) might involve Moderna being given to the following populations at higher rates:
Care home residents, mental health patients, hosptial patients, homeless, pregnant women, and military
The question for the younger groups in particular is "in what setting/context were younger adults receiving the shot?"
I would also like to see the same kind of data with flu shot status
Here is an explanation why targetting the sick wouldn't not produce the same result. https://drclarecraig.substack.com/p/why-i-am-backing-steve-kirsch-on
I am not so much talking about the sick as I am place of/context or reason for vaccination and place of death
Moderna was given to people with more chronic conditions so they would be more vulnerable to die from Covid.
https://x.com/UncleJo46902375/status/1814375808062112215
I am sure that those who gave up their lives (rather unwillingly) are at peace knowing that not all big pharma thugs (or drugs) are as deadly as others. Factoid you are likely to ignore: 95% of big pharma drugs are poisons and the other 5% you do not want to take.
Pfizer has more marketingbudget and more media in their pocket than Moderna.
Shouldn't this same concept be applied to VAERS? Do a proportional reporting ratio over time for moderna with pfizer as the control product.
https://x.com/jsm2334/status/1813674788432314813
Morris is correct that confounding could potentially explain such results. But to assume it is the case is the standard hand-waving. Assumed safe until proven deadly is the mainstream motto. The study he cites doesn't seem convincing. Those background differences between pfizer and moderna recipients seem too slight to my eyes.
What makes you think the vaccines were "distributed randomly" and that there is no relevant confounding between vaccination groups?
Also, why is it that the fact that Moderna death rates were higher than Pfizer death rates means "Moderna is dangerous" and killing people?
If you look at unvaccinated death rates in this same population, it is higher than the Moderna death rates consistently across age groups, and also if you look at actuarial baseline death rates for these age groups you see that the Moderna death rates are not greater than the baseline death rates.
When taking into consideration the unvaccinated death rates and actuarial baseline death rates, the dominant result is not that Moderna had "high" death rate, but rather that Pfizer had very low death rates relative to unvaccinated and the other vaccine groups as well.
Regardless, it is difficult to see how someone can make a cogent argument that these data suggest vaccines cause high death rates when all of it is taken into account.
Here is my x.com thread presenting this analysis and showing these results, and I have the analysis scripts and links to data set so anyone interested can ask me and I'll send to them to reproduce and critique my results or edit to do their own analyses. If interested reach out to me on @jsm2334
https://x.com/jsm2334/status/1813584535763763574
The overall mortality in the vaccinated population is HALF of the historic baseline.
That is not because of the vaccine.
There are huge numbers of confounders between the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations which have been repeatedly referenced as a reason not to compare these groups.
This analysis avoids that problem.
I am assuming the vaccines were distributed randomly because there is no evidence to assume otherwise. For 25-70 year olds the proportion of moderna to pfizer was equal for each age group. If moderna were targeted to those likely to die that consisitent distribution would not be seen.
There is more variation over time in older age groups.
Why are you assuming they were distributed randomly? It doesn't appear so.
https://sars2.net/czech.html#Were_Pfizer_and_Moderna_vaccines_allocated_randomly
Here are the reasons why they were distributed randomly.
https://drclarecraig.substack.com/p/why-i-am-backing-steve-kirsch-on
No, Clare. They clearly were not "distributed randomly"
Those receiving Moderna had 2x the rate of chronic health conditions than Pfizer (7.4% vs. 3.7%)
That is called confounding, and you can't wish it away.
https://x.com/UncleJo46902375/status/1814375808062112215/photo/1
In fact they were not.
Someone else found on the Czechia website that Moderna was 2x the rate of chronic health conditions than Pfizer:
https://x.com/UncleJo46902375/status/1814375808062112215/photo/1
Thank you for your response.
It is not half the historic baseline -- see my analysis and plots. I include the 2015-2019 average actuarial values for baseline deaths (and as I have repeatedly suggested, you should overlay them on your plots to provide some context).
The vaccinated death rates are for most age groups 10-25% below the historical levels, while the unvaccinated death rates are between 15-35% above historical levels such that the combined group is not far from historical baseline levels.
And as I have repeatedly stated, I agree that there is confounding between vaccinated and unvaccinated, which is why one cannot make any causal statements at all from these data event thought they are entire population data.
But the confounding is not limited to vaccinated and unvaccinated, of course. The different vaccine brand groups also have confounding. This data set shows strongly different age distributions (which can be accounted for by age stratification), but unfortunately the data set does not have information on other confounders so this cannot be investigated or taken into account, which is why one also cannot make any causal statements about vaccines by comparing the different brands (as you and Steve are trying to do).
Another nearby eastern European nation (Hungary) also has full-population level data posted by vaccination status, and in supplementary table S1 of their paper they compare the various vaccination brands with respect to key confounders like comorbidities and find ENORMOUS differences -- with all comorbidities differing strongly between vaccine dose groups with p<<0.001 levels. I have posted a link to these data and a screen shot of the table in my tweet (https://x.com/jsm2334/status/1813674788432314813)
Sadly we can't produce this table for the Czech data since they don't share comorbidities or other confounder levels. But this goes to show how strong the confounding between brands can be and CERTAINLY establishes the assumption you and Steve are trying to make that the Moderna and Pfizer groups are comparable with virtually no confounding (once age stratified) and thus any difference between them consitutes causal vaccine effects is completely invalid.
All you can do in comparing vaccination brand groups together (or comparing unvaccinated to vaccinated groups) is to provide a descriptive summary, and discuss potential factors explaining the difference, which includes causal vaccine effects as well as confounder effects.
You can't use the argument "I can assume there is no confounding because there is no evidence of confounding" -- that is invalid scientifically (and you should really know that) -- especially when the data set lacks any information on confounders so it is impossible to get any such evidence.
So basically “we can’t know what all the confounders are”.
Except of course when the “real world studies” purportedly support VE, when apparently we can.
Some data sets have extensive confounders measured, and then we can use any of a number of more rigorous design/analysis tools to try to adjust for them and get a better estimate of vaccine effects.
But even then, we have to be careful about interpretation and investigate the potential of unmeasured/residual confounders.
But as you say, in this data set we have no confounders other than age/sex and so can't even begin to investigate or try to adjust. Thus we can only do basic descriptive analysis that must be intepreted softly since there is no way to know how much of the difference is from vaccine effects vs. confounder effects.
If you are saying we can't trust any study on the vaccine because of confounders you are also saying Dr. Craig's statement that Moderna is "deadlier" also can't be trusted.
It's not that you can't trust observational studies because of confounding.
It's just that you have to aware that confounding is always an issue with observational studies so you should carefully and cautiously interpret the results
(which Dr. Craig and Mr. Kirsch have not done in this case -- they recklessly allege these data show Moderna is a "kill shot" and that the difference between Moderna and Pfizer is driven by vaccine-caused deaths without any evidence or acknowledgement of potential confounders.
Location (city/region) and setting (hospital, care home) etc) of death are known at the record level, yes?
For that reason alone, I am unclear as to why it is assumed based on age and brand of vaccine that the shots were randomly distributed.
I could be missing/misunderstanding something and am happy to be corrected if that is the case
They likely weren't.
https://sars2.net/czech.html#Were_Pfizer_and_Moderna_vaccines_allocated_randomly
Agreed on that point
I've always assumed this would be the case given the higher dose. But the flip side is that virtually all the observational studies showed that, to the degree that these vaccines had any efficacy, Moderna was more effective and its efficacy was more durable. Per Nordström, et al., for instance, 6 months after vaccination, the efficacy of Moderna was twice that of Pfizer-BioNTech. So, risk/benefit would remain roughly the same, aka equally shitty. This has always been the odd things about all the talk about the observed greater risk of Moderna. What about benefit? That's never mentioned.
For the Nordström study and related studies, see my early discussion here: https://edv1694.substack.com/p/a-theory-on-pfizer-biontech-fraud.
Two further points. What about batch variability? If Pfizer-BioNTech was including certain batches without mRNA, just empty lipids, then the lesser lethality would be an expression of fraud more than anything else. You know the discussion, of course. (https://dailysceptic.org/2024/01/24/did-pfizer-biontech-placebo-vaccine-doses-contain-empty-lipids-without-mrna/)
And, secondly, many of the studies supposedly showing the greater toxicity of Moderna turn out to contain surprises when one digs a bit deeper. You and your Hart colleagues uncovered one huge surprise, for instance, in the famous Oxford myocarditis study: namely, that the raw data showed 49 myocarditis deaths for Pfizer-BioNTech and *zero* for Moderna. (https://www.hartgroup.org/myocarditis-began-with-vaccine-rollout/)
The Pfizer-BNT sample was undoubtedly far larger. I would guess 10 times larger. But 49-0 is 49-0. And that little gem was hidden in the published paper, which, of course, suggested that the myocarditis risk from Moderna was far higher.
Efficacy vs what? Being euthanized?
I suspect "efficacy" in suppressing symptoms for a little while. In the case of Moderna, a little while longer. That was the only thing that was really tested in the clinical trials. I agree, of course, that that is virtually completely irrelevant. But those were the rules of the game. It was very odd that when all the Moderna bad/"Pfizer" good studies started coming out, they totally ignored even this efficacy. The only parties whose interests this served were BioNTech and Pfizer, which became the fall-back "vaccine" for the entire Western world essentially per the argument: it won't help you but it will kill you less. And many supposed dissidents happily jumped on this bandwagon. For instance, Vinay Prasad did. He was positively *recommending* Pfizer jabs for young people.
But the case definition used in the clinical trials was not based just on symptoms. It was symptoms (of a cold) plus a positive Covid test. When looking at symptoms alone, the data was entirely different.
Yes, agree. Let's say "symptoms of Covid" with "Covid" here defined as just whatever induces a positive PCR. But you say when looking at symptoms alone, the data was entirely different. Do we know that's the case for Moderna? We do know it, thanks to Doshi, for BioNTech-Pfizer. Did Moderna also have so many "suspected but unconfirmed" cases? I don't know. I know that Moderna did not cull its data the way BioNTech-Pfizer did, excluding 6x more participants from the vax arm than from the placebo arm.
This is my point and was the point of my original article here: https://edv1694.substack.com/p/a-theory-on-pfizer-biontech-fraud Pfizer and BioNTech quite simply cheated in order to get their efficacy numbers in the clinical trials with its famously low dose. Moderna used a high dose and really hit mark (its being granted that it was a ridiculous target to set to begin with). For dissidents, to say well look Moderna is more toxic without saying anything about this is to legitimate the fraud.
Note from the discussion between Clare and Jeffrey Morris elsewhere in these comments that this data actually shows the vaccines *were* effective. The unvaccinated have the worst mortality numbers. This is typical. All the Moderna bad/"Pfizer" good studies are like this. They are poison pills for the opposition. Kirsch apparently tries to spin that Pfizer is also bad but less bad. But this does not appear to be what the data shows.
The Oxford study was the same: it actually showed that "the virus" caused more myocarditis than the Pfizer-BNT vax. What complete and utter bullshit. Having lived through 2020 and 2021, anyone reading that conclusion ought to have immediately thrown the study in the garbage. But much of the supposed opposition was lapping it up and helping to increase BioNTech's and Pfizer's sales.
✅
False. It was symptomatic Covid infection and secondary was looking at severe disease caused by Covid. You don't seem to understand how trials work.
Efficacy vs severe disease and death from the Covid, a novel virus that indisputably was the driver of excess mortality starting in 2020, pre-vaccines.
https://sars2.net/nopandemic.html#Reasons_why_SARS2_was_a_novel_virus_and_not_in_widespread_circulation_before_2020
Against a "placebo" baseline of Pfizer injections, that indicates that these death rates would actually be higher.
But in these same data if you look, the unvaccinated death rates are much higher than Moderna.
So it is difficult for them to support their narrative that these differences are driven by vaccine induced deaths if they acknowledge rather than ignore the unvaccinated death rates from these same data.
I think the vaccinated died because there is something in their physical makeup & psyche that made them more vulnerable to being harmed - I think there was a fear of being harmed causing them even more stress whilst they are already in a state of high stress. I believe their immune systems were already compromised due to high cortisone levels perhaps because they were self absorbed, self focussed & anxious … therefore blood pressure high, leading perhaps to heart attacks / strokes. Cancers able to take hold because of the change in the cell nuclei & no immune system to fight it... I’m just putting it out there.