The Czech mortality data - is Moderna deathier than Pfizer?
My own very preliminary analysis.
Steve Kirsch did something clever with a recently FOIAed dataset from the Czech Republic. You can read about that here.
This data itself is excellent because it is what is known as “record-level data” which means that there is a record for every person in the Czech Republic who took a COVID-19 shot. And it’s a big file.
Clare Craig also corroborated Steve’s findings.
Naturally, I was intrigued. So I downloaded the data set and got my hands dirty. It is indeed a big data set with a whopping 11,028,372 records, and each record includes a person’s year of birth (for anonymity), shot information - including data on up to 7 shots, manufacturer and batch number - and whether or not they died. Importantly, because we have the year of birth and death date, we can know how old they were when they died and how long after their last shot they died.
Of these 11,028,372 people, my preliminary analysis will focus on the ones who died (for which there is manufacturer-related data), since I want to compare death rates between manufacturers, and more specifically, Pfizer and Moderna. Unfortunately, as with all data sets, there are always many fields not occupied with data, so it’s not perfect. It is damned good though.
There are a total of 389,398 records that include a date of death which constitutes 3.5% of the total data set. Granted, I am not sure if this number represents all of the people who died, or simply all of the people who have death date data entered. There are 5 manufacturers listed in this dataset including Pfizer, Moderna, Astrazeneca, Janssen and Novavax, but I will focus on the modified mRNA product data.
I decided to try to reproduce what Steve found, as a start. This is vital in science: reproducibility. I have a really weird and slow process so I figured if I could verify his result using my alt slow methods, then the “compelling-factor” would be high.
What Steve did in a nutshell
He basically plotted the death rates calculated from this data set for Moderna and Pfizer injectees as a ratio (Moderna:Pfizer) to demonstrate that the Moderna product is more ‘deathy’ than Pfizer - especially for younger people. He assumed that if both vaccines were relatively safe (or dangerous), the death rate ratio values should be close to 1 for every age. Any skewing of the ratio would naturally indicate that one product has a higher death rate.
I recreated the ‘givens’ provided by Steve in the context of the primary finding in his article. I counted the number of deaths associated with Pfizer and Moderna for everyone who received at least 2 doses of the same product sequentially, and who got double-injected by the end 2021 in my attempt to reproduce the following plot.
Numbers
The total number of people who got 2 sequential shots by the end of 2021 in the context of Pfizer is 5,317,914, and for Moderna: 496,440. So about 11 times more people (according to this dataset) got injected with 2 shots of Pfizer by the end of 2021 over Moderna.
So how many people died in these groups?
The total number of people who got double injected in 2021, and who died (as indicated by the entry of a date of death) in the context of Pfizer is 86,224, and for Moderna: 16,430.
To calculate the death rates for each manufacturer, we will simply divide the number of people who were reported to have died according to manufacturer, by the total number of people injected as per manufacturer. Therefore, the death rates are 1.6% and 3.3% for Pfizer and Moderna, respectively. This corroborates what Steve found in that the death rate for Moderna is twice that of Pfizer, as a bird’s eye view.
It becomes even more striking when we plot the Moderna:Pfizer death rate ratios by age. Below is Steve’s original chart on the left, and my reproduction (using my own weird methods and R) on the right. They are pretty well-matched.
My age groupings are a little different, but the picture is the same, and what this means is that Moderna is more ‘deathy’ than Pfizer, especially in younger age groups.
The dose of the Moderna products is technically ~3 times higher than for Pfizer, so does this explain what we are observing from this record-level data?
“Certainly the most striking difference is the [dosage],” says Sette. Each dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine delivers 30 µg of mRNA, while each of Moderna’s contains 100 µg.1
It’s possible a higher dosage clinically translates into a more robust immune response and subsequent protection, a hypothesis Sette says “makes a lot of sense,” especially in light of what he and his colleagues found when they compared the immune response to two different mRNA doses of Moderna’s vaccine (25µg versus a 100µg). While the lower dose induced a good response in people—similar to that triggered by an actual SARS-CoV-2 infection—those who received it had significantly lower antibody levels and fewer CD4+ T cells two weeks after the second shot.
Food for thought… to be continued.
https://www.the-scientist.com/moderna-vs-pfizer-is-there-a-best-mrna-vaccine-69229
I suspect verifying someone else's work is less exciting and fun than discovery and trailblazing, Especially on such a large chunk of data. But it's work that must be
done & shared for the good of science.
Thank you for doing that.
It's important to get the "vaccine" story straight and your work, Jessica, has been amazing and instrumental in doing that. Thank you!! But here's my worry. This (by now quite obvious) attempt at mass murder cooked up by a cabal of psychopathic billionaires is part of a much larger takeover-the-world story. There must come a time when the major collective focus needs to shift from "what happened" to "what's now likely to happen".
Clearly, we are continuing to be subjected to censorship, propaganda, and a series of distractions in a gigantic game of "look over there!". This is one of their classic tactics. So, what don't they want us to focus on? My guess is the threat to freedom called Central Bank Digital Currency. I believe they are trying to engineer some chaotic situations that appear incredibly dangerous and foster enough fear in the population to make the installation of CBDC look reasonable.
They've already got massive databases of surveilled personal information. Most countries have announced their involvement in CBDC, with some either ready or almost-ready to pounce. Add digital IDs to the mix, connect all three together with AI, and you have a powerful behavior control system on a massive scale.
OK, that's my worry. Now for my question: What good is so many of us focusing on every last excruciating detail of the mRNA fiasco if we're all soon to be locked in a CBDC prison in which all personal freedoms have been lost? Because that's very clearly where we're headed. If there's not a massive uprising soon, and in particular against CBDC, we will have been like sheep lead to the slaughter. THAT is the hill to die on. Especially for younger people, who are about to be robbed of the majority of their free adult lives.