Thank you. I have two questions for your awesomeness. I long for Congress to work towards some prosecutions before November. What do you think of the safety signals in the VAERS data that was publicly by January 31, 2021? Are there any significant differences because of throttling to the data now available of events that occurred before January 31, 2021?
Even without the throttling, VAERS analysis.info (aka Wayne) shows how the PRR (proportionate reporting ratio) and chi-squared was being signaled by late Jan 2021. Anyone could easily calibrate the dashboard to see which reports from say 2023 forward have a vax date in Jan 2021. One metric I know for sure is when Steve Kirsch came up with his 41x URF in Jun 2021 he was working with about ~5500 deaths at the time. A retrospective look back now shows more than double the deaths of domestic victims that died Jun 2021 or later. Thanks
Jessica Rose has professional presentations on her substack explaining the VAERS data (as well as anyone is able). Unacceptable Jessica. And she is NOT a double agent, as some mistakenly claim.
I don’t think she is a double agent, I just think she is disingenuous for many reasons. Have you ever heard her say 30% of all reports have an unknown age? Have you heard her say there is not 197 dead kids, but at least 538 dead kids in VAERS? She knows, but why does she not mention these factoids? I think it’s because it puts a big ugly fly in the ointment that is all her previous age cohort analysis? Sure she gives a “N= xxxxxxx” disclaimer as to how many reports she’s analyzing, but what laymen would know she only analyzing two thirds of the data whenever doing age cohort analysis? How many of her staunch followers know this factoid now after 3 years? Very little in my opinion, but I guess the original question was about the throttling, and I can say only ~30% of all C19 reports are processed and published WITHIN the 4-6 week adjudication allowed window per CDC’s own guidelines. I wish Rose would double check my assertions once in a while and concur or rebuttal but she does not. She knows me, and I include her on many important Twitter posts and cross references her articles so I know she gets those alerts. I have to deduce that her silence means there is nothing to rebuttal and she doesn’t want that fly in her ointment? Scientists are weird that way.
Why are the powers that be hiding demographic data on the Vaxed?
Are some countries/populations/races more negatively affected by the Vax? Was it used for "equitable population reduction" (genocide) or some other nefarious, undisclosed means?
Where's the country codes? The STATE column only seems to include US states and territories. And the "NonDomesticVAERSDATA" file only seems to include French data.
No wait FR is not France but foreign? And the country codes are in the SYMPTOM_TEXT field. I got it now, thanks. That file was exactly what I was looking for.
Excellent. Happy to help. FR=foreign and the two digit country code will be found in a field called SPLIT_TYPE. This field contains manufacturer cryptic time stamp also. BTW, I'd love to give you all my master files including all the deleted reports! I'm the only one in the world with the deleted reports data (after publication). One thing I haven't done yet is quick search on what Denmark or Czech reports have been deleted (after publication).
Also, something that is above my knowledge base but probably not above yours is doing some kind of Python Probability fuzzy logic conditional match against what has been deleted, and what the probability is that it was a legitimate deletion because of "duplicate" live report match? It's been my assertion that VAERS is deleting legitimate reports in part because I can't find the "live" and/or they are very professionally written and don't seem to be fake/fraudulent. welcometheeagle88@protonmail.com contact me if interested. Thanks
I'm already researching too many different aspects of COVID, so I have tried to avoid looking into vaccine data and VAERS... But maybe I'll look into that after I'm done with the Czech data.
Previously when I picked rows where the `SYMPTOM_TEXT` field matched `\bCZ-` (where `\b` is a word boundary), I got 199 reports for Moderna but 1210 for Pfizer. But now when I picked rows where the `SPLTTYPE` field started with `CZ`, I got 415 reports for Moderna but 1369 for Pfizer. So it approximately doubled the Moderna-Pfizer ratio. I don't know if it's because there's a lot of reports where the `SYMPTOM_TEXT` field matches `CZ-PFIZER` but there's no similar identifier for Moderna vaccines.
But it might also mean that there's somehow a different reporting structure used for Pfizer vaccines and Moderna vaccines, which might mean that either Moderna or Pfizer vaccines might be overrepresented among the subset of Czech reports that were added to VAERS.
So among the rows in the old VAERS data where `SPLTTYPE` starts with `CZ`, Pfizer seems to have about 3.3 times as many reports as Moderna, even though the ratio is about 6.8 in the spreadsheet from the GitHub account of Palacký University. But the Palacký spreadsheet had about 10 times as many total reports as VAERS, so there was probably some kind of a bias in which subset of all Czech reports were submitted to VAERS: sars2.net/czech3.html#Ratio_of_deaths_per_adverse_event_reports_in_VAERS_calculated_by_Hans_Joachim_Kremer.
Actually in the previous calculation I forgot that I only included reports that were not missing an age. But now when I also included the Czech VAERS reports that were missing an age, Pfizer now got about 10.3 times as many reports as Moderna, and the ratio of reports per doses administered ended up being slightly higher for Pfizer than Moderna.
Thank you. I have two questions for your awesomeness. I long for Congress to work towards some prosecutions before November. What do you think of the safety signals in the VAERS data that was publicly by January 31, 2021? Are there any significant differences because of throttling to the data now available of events that occurred before January 31, 2021?
Even without the throttling, VAERS analysis.info (aka Wayne) shows how the PRR (proportionate reporting ratio) and chi-squared was being signaled by late Jan 2021. Anyone could easily calibrate the dashboard to see which reports from say 2023 forward have a vax date in Jan 2021. One metric I know for sure is when Steve Kirsch came up with his 41x URF in Jun 2021 he was working with about ~5500 deaths at the time. A retrospective look back now shows more than double the deaths of domestic victims that died Jun 2021 or later. Thanks
Jessica Rose has professional presentations on her substack explaining the VAERS data (as well as anyone is able). Unacceptable Jessica. And she is NOT a double agent, as some mistakenly claim.
I don’t think she is a double agent, I just think she is disingenuous for many reasons. Have you ever heard her say 30% of all reports have an unknown age? Have you heard her say there is not 197 dead kids, but at least 538 dead kids in VAERS? She knows, but why does she not mention these factoids? I think it’s because it puts a big ugly fly in the ointment that is all her previous age cohort analysis? Sure she gives a “N= xxxxxxx” disclaimer as to how many reports she’s analyzing, but what laymen would know she only analyzing two thirds of the data whenever doing age cohort analysis? How many of her staunch followers know this factoid now after 3 years? Very little in my opinion, but I guess the original question was about the throttling, and I can say only ~30% of all C19 reports are processed and published WITHIN the 4-6 week adjudication allowed window per CDC’s own guidelines. I wish Rose would double check my assertions once in a while and concur or rebuttal but she does not. She knows me, and I include her on many important Twitter posts and cross references her articles so I know she gets those alerts. I have to deduce that her silence means there is nothing to rebuttal and she doesn’t want that fly in her ointment? Scientists are weird that way.
Do you think Bill doesn’t know who Jessica Rose is? Common man
Thank you for your eagle eye and hard work, WTE. APPLAUSE!!
Why are the powers that be hiding demographic data on the Vaxed?
Are some countries/populations/races more negatively affected by the Vax? Was it used for "equitable population reduction" (genocide) or some other nefarious, undisclosed means?
Where can I download VAERS data for European countries like Czechia or Denmark?
https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html
Here is the last downloadable file before the two digit country code was stripped retroactively from all EMA & MHRA reports:
https://www.vaersaware.com/post/vaers-nov-11th-downloadable-files
Where's the country codes? The STATE column only seems to include US states and territories. And the "NonDomesticVAERSDATA" file only seems to include French data.
No wait FR is not France but foreign? And the country codes are in the SYMPTOM_TEXT field. I got it now, thanks. That file was exactly what I was looking for.
The spreadsheet from the batch study by Palacký University doesn't have information about the age of subjects, but I wanted to calculate an age-normalized rate of adverse reports in response to this post by HajoKremer: https://tkp.at/2024/08/06/spikevax-gefaehrlicher-als-comirnaty-steve-kirsch-greift-daneben.
Excellent. Happy to help. FR=foreign and the two digit country code will be found in a field called SPLIT_TYPE. This field contains manufacturer cryptic time stamp also. BTW, I'd love to give you all my master files including all the deleted reports! I'm the only one in the world with the deleted reports data (after publication). One thing I haven't done yet is quick search on what Denmark or Czech reports have been deleted (after publication).
Also, something that is above my knowledge base but probably not above yours is doing some kind of Python Probability fuzzy logic conditional match against what has been deleted, and what the probability is that it was a legitimate deletion because of "duplicate" live report match? It's been my assertion that VAERS is deleting legitimate reports in part because I can't find the "live" and/or they are very professionally written and don't seem to be fake/fraudulent. welcometheeagle88@protonmail.com contact me if interested. Thanks
I'm already researching too many different aspects of COVID, so I have tried to avoid looking into vaccine data and VAERS... But maybe I'll look into that after I'm done with the Czech data.
Previously when I picked rows where the `SYMPTOM_TEXT` field matched `\bCZ-` (where `\b` is a word boundary), I got 199 reports for Moderna but 1210 for Pfizer. But now when I picked rows where the `SPLTTYPE` field started with `CZ`, I got 415 reports for Moderna but 1369 for Pfizer. So it approximately doubled the Moderna-Pfizer ratio. I don't know if it's because there's a lot of reports where the `SYMPTOM_TEXT` field matches `CZ-PFIZER` but there's no similar identifier for Moderna vaccines.
But it might also mean that there's somehow a different reporting structure used for Pfizer vaccines and Moderna vaccines, which might mean that either Moderna or Pfizer vaccines might be overrepresented among the subset of Czech reports that were added to VAERS.
So among the rows in the old VAERS data where `SPLTTYPE` starts with `CZ`, Pfizer seems to have about 3.3 times as many reports as Moderna, even though the ratio is about 6.8 in the spreadsheet from the GitHub account of Palacký University. But the Palacký spreadsheet had about 10 times as many total reports as VAERS, so there was probably some kind of a bias in which subset of all Czech reports were submitted to VAERS: sars2.net/czech3.html#Ratio_of_deaths_per_adverse_event_reports_in_VAERS_calculated_by_Hans_Joachim_Kremer.
Actually in the previous calculation I forgot that I only included reports that were not missing an age. But now when I also included the Czech VAERS reports that were missing an age, Pfizer now got about 10.3 times as many reports as Moderna, and the ratio of reports per doses administered ended up being slightly higher for Pfizer than Moderna.