I guess that Czechs living overseas might return home for medical treatment. This could explain the numbers in the database being higher than the population
This seems unlikely given the shot was available in most of Europe and America.
I cannot see half a million people travelling back just to take a shot that could be found locally. After all, if the vaccine mandates were implemented for travel, they wouldn't have been able to arrive in the first place without having gotten it somewhere else first.
The burden would be on the Czech government to explain why the figures don't match and to demonstrate the accuracy of their figures. I don't think there's much point trying to speculate on why the discrepancy exists because it is impossible for us to know why (given we don't have full access to Czech data).
I think what he meant was that someone living in a different country might return to Czechoslovakia for other medical reasons (preferred physician, specialist, insurance requirements, etc.), thus adding to the database without being a registered citizen.
Besides, it does not answer the question - why travel X many miles back (thousands?) if you're living overseas. Why not use local overseas services? You say 'preferred physician' but if they're naturalised overseas, then their preferred physician would also be overseas - local to them.
Otherwise you'd have to suggest that no matter what injury or illness they encounter, half-a-million Czechs will travel back. Even during a period of mandates and lockdowns. That's patently absurd.
From my experience in Greece. We have plethora of ppl that are working abroad (50% youth unemployment for t better part of last decade drives immigration) . Most get their doctor visits as they come back to family visits. They trust them more& are cheaper. Of course they would use the health system in the country they work but still prefer the doctors back home. As a dentist I have so many such examples. If they are not in extreme pain they will wait till they come to me. The difference in prices is huge , while they get a caring treatment from someone they know.
Prices wouldn't be a factor because the shots were free for almost everybody at the time. Trust, maybe, but I have a hard time believing half a million would all travel within the span of 2 years.
Maxipes has offered a referenced insight - it turns out Czech gov didn't actually comply with the request for citizens' data and included non-citizens as well.
Hi, the main reason for the differences in numbers is that it contains all individuals in the Czech Republic who ever lived over that entire period. In other words, it includes all who died over that period as well as all who were born during that period. At a death count of about 120,000/year and about 100,000 births per year, you will get that number, although the population still remains at about 10.5 mil...
I don't need speculative and incorrect answers being projected as right without evidence.
The Czech government did not provide the correct information. The request was for citizens, but it included data for individuals (which includes non-citizens). The datasets are mergers from two different sources of data, hence the discrepency.
'I refuse to believe there is a 100% data tracking rate amongst the entire populace. No medical record system is 100% complete.' => with the old style vaccines, yes, the new covid gene therapies are very different, plus the fact that they were mandated in many places, required a 'registration system'..
In face of genetically modified population, it is extremely important to analyze any available data, and WARN, WARN, WARN everyone. Thank You!
Based on my experience working in the NHS, where they had patient records mismanaged on spreadsheets (much like Czech are seemingly doing here), a 100% tracking rate of the vaccinated status amongst the population is literally not possible.
This is because you have a variety of factors in dataset management:
1) You're relying on unified datasets/services (example: think rural areas with no real internet connection and private hospital services that 'do their own thing')
2) You're relying on users of the unified datasets/services to input all date correctly (spoiler alert: clinician input error is a *very* common issue)
3) You're relying on patients to 'play ball' and use a service that is registered (rather than say, going overseas to receive a shot in a different country and coming back)
4) You have a negative-set bias in the dataset in you can only confirm positive records (I.E. someone receiving a shot), you cannot confirm someone is 'unvaccinated' due to '3'
5) There's always, ALWAYS people without documentation (homeless people with no fixed address and no birth certification, illegal immigrants, criminals who don't want to disclose identifying information, babies that were never formally registered and don't have a birth certificate)
Even if you somehow magically make the above variables disappear, there's always a time-lag component on how quickly data appears on the system. I'm supposed to believe no-one died in *either* group for 2023 and 2024? Where's the deaths for 2023/2024?
No system can offer a 100% tracking rate. Physically impossible currently.
do not agree with that, despite of so many listed factors. Also, if you assume the tracking is incomplete, your numbers here are not right..
While looking at your numbers, finally, there are inconsistencies here. There is this saying 'there are lies, damned lies and there is the statistics', in particular when talking INDIVIDUAL DEATH.. But, let's forget that, and look at my own experiences. I do not know anyone who died after ONE shot, all, and I know quite few, died after MULTIPLE shots, which indicates: 'around me, 'somehow', the more shots the higher probability of dying, totally opposite to your statement:
'The estimated probabilistic odds of dying at each stage (exclusive) are:
1 in ~22 (1 shot)...
1 in ~96,163 (5 shots)
I hope you normalized your numbers to the fact that in average (US data) ~80% got 2 shots, only ~50% got 3, 25% got 4. 10% got 5,....
In your 'any mRNA' (scientifically NOT TRUE, since all the covid jabs are SYNTHETIC mod mRNA, that's how they should be called and covid injections not 'vaccines' BUT in fact GENETICALLY MODIFYING TREATMENTS!!!!) risk assessment, are the data normalized to the total number of each distributed types, Mod-E-RNA and Pfizer?
Last remark, that '1 in x' presentation of data would be clearer if % instead was used, to me....
You're free not to agree with my personal first hand experience of patient record management, but every single one of those variables are true. The homeless are marked "NFA" (no fixed address).
"if you assume the tracking is incomplete, your numbers here are not right.."
Yes. But as I pointed out, it falls on the Czech government to rectify *their* mistakes. I did not produce the original data; I analysed it.
"I hope you normalized your numbers to the fact that in average (US data)"
Unfortunately my analysis is only valid for Czechia. You can maybe infer some aspects for the US, but I believe they have two radically different healthcare systems (I believe Czechia is a relatively poor country? And US healthcare is heavily privatised).
A note I forgot to include is healthcare services will impact the fatality rates, as they're the difference between a fatal heart attack and a timely intervention delaying the inevitable.
I'm not able to normalise the percentages to the population given the number of records exceeds the total population (it would produce 110% errors which isn't going to make much sense to people).
"all the covid jabs are SYNTHETIC mod mRNA, that's how they should be called and covid injections not 'vaccines' BUT in fact GENETICALLY MODIFYING TREATMENTS"
"that '1 in x' presentation of data would be clearer if % instead was used"
You can work out what percentage of a population *could* die (assuming they all took the shot) by dividing the total population number of the group by the rate number.
So lets say you know there's 100,000 Americans who took 1 shot. For the '1 in 22', you'd use a calculator to divide the 100,000 by 22; you would get roughly 4,545 (that's how many of the group who would likely die).
Then in the boxes where it says "[_] is what % of [_]" type in the smaller number and the larger number. So it should look like: "[4545] is what % of [100000]", click calculate next to it. For me the result is '4.54%'
The rates are only useful for matching groups. So the 2-shot group will need the 2-shot rate, and the 3-shot group the 3-shot rate, etc. I've actually done most of the legwork so it's easy to pull rough estimates on fatalities out from other groups.
Regarding the fact that there are more datasets than the current population: If I am understanding correctly the data covers the years 2020 up to part of 2024, or 4 full years plus part of 2024. Since some people died during these years, the sum of those who died plus the current population obviously has to add up to more than just the current population. Might this account for there being more records than the current population?
There could be any number of explanations for why the figures don't match. It'd be an exercise in futility to speculate. The burden would be on the Czech government to demonstrate the accuracy of their figures and account for the discrepancies.
In my opinion based on prior experience, having a 100% reporting accuracy on the entire population is not reasonably possible either (on account it is impossible to manually review 11 million records and there are a great many chunks of folks who refuse to submit to or get involved with government bureaucracy).
For contrast, the NHS does not have a 100% reporting coverage rate (something like 30-40% of the population's vaccination status are unknown), and Czech have admitted to prior discrepancies (how can one administer more doses than they distribute? A physical impossibility).
Unfortunately it is impossible to isolate good and bad data, so I have to take it at face value, noting any dataset anomalies along the way. Perhaps somebody can FOIA them for an explanation on the differences in figures? (I don't speak/write Czech, so someone versed in the language would need to do it)
First, Czechoslovakia had higher population than 11M but that country doesn't exist anymore so please don't use that name unless you're referring to specific time period. It's confusing in same way as reading about USSR or Yugoslavia.
Now regarding those discrepancies - I have to say, the FOIA reply isn't entirely clear in multiple parts and raises further questions (at least for me).
From the "primary goal" section:
Tato sada dat obsahuje záznamy všech osob v České republice, které žily alespoň jeden den od roku 2020 - This dataset contains records of every person in the Czech Republic who lived at least one day from year 2020. It does not explicitly mention citizens (občan), but uses generic "osoba" (a person). The word citizen is only at the beginning of the document (… Anonymizovaná data všech občanů ČR), which is a summary of the request (FOIA), not part of the response itself.
From the "basic information" section:
Každý záznam v sadě obsahuje informace o jedné osobě včetně demografických údajů (pohlaví, rok narození). Technicky je tato datová sada vytvořena kombinací informací z očkovacího modulu ISIN a databáze zemřelých. Osoby, které nejsou evidovány v žádném z těchto systémů, jsou dopočítány na základě demografických dat z 1. ledna 2020 a počtu narozených v letech 2020-2022. - Every record contains information about single person (again - person, not citizen) including demographic details. Technically, this dataset was created by combining data from vaccination module of ISIN (information system of infectious diseases) and registry of deaths. Data for persons who are not registered in either of those systems are calculated based on demographical data from 1st of January 2020 and number of births in 2020-2022.
As I said - given that part of the dataset has been extrapolated from demographic trends and the constant use of person instead of citizen, I think further clarifications would be needed to be sure how they got to >11M records (the FOIA response itself mentions only "more than 10 milion records"). One thing I can think of are the Ukrainian refugees - official numbers were something around 350.000 registered + about a same number of unregistered ones approx. a year ago. Those refugees should have same access to health insurance and health care services as Czech citizens so if they were included (being persons), it could add up.
Absolutely excellent insight (Substack really needs a feature to allow the pinning of sub-comments). Their method of compliance is strange then - the FOIA asks for citizens but the government throws 'persons' (which, as you point out, can include non-citizens, which technically doesn't meet the requirement).
The issue with including non-citizens is their residence is usually transient. So if, say, ~300,000 got the shot but then moved on, their deaths won't be recorded (so it looks like the shot is safe, but in reality the deaths have been transferred to another country).
Thank you for spotting the geographical error. I will adjust the reference from Czechoslovakia to Czechia/Czech Republic. I'm a bit old school and I had assumed (incorrectly) Czech was short for Czechoslovakia, error is entirely mine.
I will likely write up an addendum into the end of the article including your observations.
Shedding safety protocol from the Pfizer clinical trial - I doubt they ever wanted "herd immunity ", I believe it was herd saturation they wanted.
This is why I take natto etc because I believe the shedding is real.
To the best of my knowledge all gene therapies must be assessed for the shedding potential due to the risk.
"Inhalation or skin contact" was the exact wording in Pfizer's clinical trial protocol document (linked below). Pfizer *anticipated* that people coming into contact with the study participants (the ones receiving the Pfizer "vaccines") either via “inhalation or skin contact” might exhibit SAEs (serious adverse events) or AEs (adverse events). read section 10.4.1, (pages 132 to 133), where it states, and I quote: "Male participants are eligible to participate [in the study, where they would receive the Pfizer Covid "vaccines"] if they agree to the following requirements during the intervention period for at least 28 days after the last dose of study intervention [the "vaccines"], which corresponds to the time needed to eliminate reproductive safety risk of the study intervention(s)." Read that part and what follows, as men receiving the jabs are then told to REFRAIN from having sex with a "female of childbearing potential." How many men taking the Covid jab have been warned not to have sex "for at least 28 days" after their 2nd Covid jab? According to this Pfizer document, anyone not knowing about that warning has potential to cause "reproductive safety risk”.
I guess that Czechs living overseas might return home for medical treatment. This could explain the numbers in the database being higher than the population
This seems unlikely given the shot was available in most of Europe and America.
I cannot see half a million people travelling back just to take a shot that could be found locally. After all, if the vaccine mandates were implemented for travel, they wouldn't have been able to arrive in the first place without having gotten it somewhere else first.
The burden would be on the Czech government to explain why the figures don't match and to demonstrate the accuracy of their figures. I don't think there's much point trying to speculate on why the discrepancy exists because it is impossible for us to know why (given we don't have full access to Czech data).
I think what he meant was that someone living in a different country might return to Czechoslovakia for other medical reasons (preferred physician, specialist, insurance requirements, etc.), thus adding to the database without being a registered citizen.
I know what he meant.
They still would not have been allowed to travel due to the vaccine mandates in effect at that time. It was Europe wide, if you remember? (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00776-3/fulltext)
Besides, it does not answer the question - why travel X many miles back (thousands?) if you're living overseas. Why not use local overseas services? You say 'preferred physician' but if they're naturalised overseas, then their preferred physician would also be overseas - local to them.
Otherwise you'd have to suggest that no matter what injury or illness they encounter, half-a-million Czechs will travel back. Even during a period of mandates and lockdowns. That's patently absurd.
From my experience in Greece. We have plethora of ppl that are working abroad (50% youth unemployment for t better part of last decade drives immigration) . Most get their doctor visits as they come back to family visits. They trust them more& are cheaper. Of course they would use the health system in the country they work but still prefer the doctors back home. As a dentist I have so many such examples. If they are not in extreme pain they will wait till they come to me. The difference in prices is huge , while they get a caring treatment from someone they know.
Prices wouldn't be a factor because the shots were free for almost everybody at the time. Trust, maybe, but I have a hard time believing half a million would all travel within the span of 2 years.
Maxipes has offered a referenced insight - it turns out Czech gov didn't actually comply with the request for citizens' data and included non-citizens as well.
Hi, the main reason for the differences in numbers is that it contains all individuals in the Czech Republic who ever lived over that entire period. In other words, it includes all who died over that period as well as all who were born during that period. At a death count of about 120,000/year and about 100,000 births per year, you will get that number, although the population still remains at about 10.5 mil...
Someone has already answered the question.
I don't need speculative and incorrect answers being projected as right without evidence.
The Czech government did not provide the correct information. The request was for citizens, but it included data for individuals (which includes non-citizens). The datasets are mergers from two different sources of data, hence the discrepency.
'I refuse to believe there is a 100% data tracking rate amongst the entire populace. No medical record system is 100% complete.' => with the old style vaccines, yes, the new covid gene therapies are very different, plus the fact that they were mandated in many places, required a 'registration system'..
In face of genetically modified population, it is extremely important to analyze any available data, and WARN, WARN, WARN everyone. Thank You!
I should clarify my statement:
Based on my experience working in the NHS, where they had patient records mismanaged on spreadsheets (much like Czech are seemingly doing here), a 100% tracking rate of the vaccinated status amongst the population is literally not possible.
This is because you have a variety of factors in dataset management:
1) You're relying on unified datasets/services (example: think rural areas with no real internet connection and private hospital services that 'do their own thing')
2) You're relying on users of the unified datasets/services to input all date correctly (spoiler alert: clinician input error is a *very* common issue)
3) You're relying on patients to 'play ball' and use a service that is registered (rather than say, going overseas to receive a shot in a different country and coming back)
4) You have a negative-set bias in the dataset in you can only confirm positive records (I.E. someone receiving a shot), you cannot confirm someone is 'unvaccinated' due to '3'
5) There's always, ALWAYS people without documentation (homeless people with no fixed address and no birth certification, illegal immigrants, criminals who don't want to disclose identifying information, babies that were never formally registered and don't have a birth certificate)
Even if you somehow magically make the above variables disappear, there's always a time-lag component on how quickly data appears on the system. I'm supposed to believe no-one died in *either* group for 2023 and 2024? Where's the deaths for 2023/2024?
No system can offer a 100% tracking rate. Physically impossible currently.
do not agree with that, despite of so many listed factors. Also, if you assume the tracking is incomplete, your numbers here are not right..
While looking at your numbers, finally, there are inconsistencies here. There is this saying 'there are lies, damned lies and there is the statistics', in particular when talking INDIVIDUAL DEATH.. But, let's forget that, and look at my own experiences. I do not know anyone who died after ONE shot, all, and I know quite few, died after MULTIPLE shots, which indicates: 'around me, 'somehow', the more shots the higher probability of dying, totally opposite to your statement:
'The estimated probabilistic odds of dying at each stage (exclusive) are:
1 in ~22 (1 shot)...
1 in ~96,163 (5 shots)
I hope you normalized your numbers to the fact that in average (US data) ~80% got 2 shots, only ~50% got 3, 25% got 4. 10% got 5,....
In your 'any mRNA' (scientifically NOT TRUE, since all the covid jabs are SYNTHETIC mod mRNA, that's how they should be called and covid injections not 'vaccines' BUT in fact GENETICALLY MODIFYING TREATMENTS!!!!) risk assessment, are the data normalized to the total number of each distributed types, Mod-E-RNA and Pfizer?
Last remark, that '1 in x' presentation of data would be clearer if % instead was used, to me....
You're free not to agree with my personal first hand experience of patient record management, but every single one of those variables are true. The homeless are marked "NFA" (no fixed address).
"if you assume the tracking is incomplete, your numbers here are not right.."
Yes. But as I pointed out, it falls on the Czech government to rectify *their* mistakes. I did not produce the original data; I analysed it.
"I hope you normalized your numbers to the fact that in average (US data)"
Unfortunately my analysis is only valid for Czechia. You can maybe infer some aspects for the US, but I believe they have two radically different healthcare systems (I believe Czechia is a relatively poor country? And US healthcare is heavily privatised).
A note I forgot to include is healthcare services will impact the fatality rates, as they're the difference between a fatal heart attack and a timely intervention delaying the inevitable.
"~80% got 2 shots, only ~50% got 3, 25% got 4. 10% got 5"
I'm not able to normalise the percentages to the population given the number of records exceeds the total population (it would produce 110% errors which isn't going to make much sense to people).
"all the covid jabs are SYNTHETIC mod mRNA, that's how they should be called and covid injections not 'vaccines' BUT in fact GENETICALLY MODIFYING TREATMENTS"
The genetic modification aspects have been covered by The Daily Beagle previously (https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/explosive-dna-modifications-impact).
"that '1 in x' presentation of data would be clearer if % instead was used"
You can work out what percentage of a population *could* die (assuming they all took the shot) by dividing the total population number of the group by the rate number.
So lets say you know there's 100,000 Americans who took 1 shot. For the '1 in 22', you'd use a calculator to divide the 100,000 by 22; you would get roughly 4,545 (that's how many of the group who would likely die).
If you need to calculate the percentage, go here: https://www.calculator.net/percent-calculator.html
Then in the boxes where it says "[_] is what % of [_]" type in the smaller number and the larger number. So it should look like: "[4545] is what % of [100000]", click calculate next to it. For me the result is '4.54%'
The rates are only useful for matching groups. So the 2-shot group will need the 2-shot rate, and the 3-shot group the 3-shot rate, etc. I've actually done most of the legwork so it's easy to pull rough estimates on fatalities out from other groups.
Hope this helps.
Regarding the fact that there are more datasets than the current population: If I am understanding correctly the data covers the years 2020 up to part of 2024, or 4 full years plus part of 2024. Since some people died during these years, the sum of those who died plus the current population obviously has to add up to more than just the current population. Might this account for there being more records than the current population?
There could be any number of explanations for why the figures don't match. It'd be an exercise in futility to speculate. The burden would be on the Czech government to demonstrate the accuracy of their figures and account for the discrepancies.
In my opinion based on prior experience, having a 100% reporting accuracy on the entire population is not reasonably possible either (on account it is impossible to manually review 11 million records and there are a great many chunks of folks who refuse to submit to or get involved with government bureaucracy).
For contrast, the NHS does not have a 100% reporting coverage rate (something like 30-40% of the population's vaccination status are unknown), and Czech have admitted to prior discrepancies (how can one administer more doses than they distribute? A physical impossibility).
Unfortunately it is impossible to isolate good and bad data, so I have to take it at face value, noting any dataset anomalies along the way. Perhaps somebody can FOIA them for an explanation on the differences in figures? (I don't speak/write Czech, so someone versed in the language would need to do it)
Czech native speaker here..
First, Czechoslovakia had higher population than 11M but that country doesn't exist anymore so please don't use that name unless you're referring to specific time period. It's confusing in same way as reading about USSR or Yugoslavia.
Now regarding those discrepancies - I have to say, the FOIA reply isn't entirely clear in multiple parts and raises further questions (at least for me).
From the "primary goal" section:
Tato sada dat obsahuje záznamy všech osob v České republice, které žily alespoň jeden den od roku 2020 - This dataset contains records of every person in the Czech Republic who lived at least one day from year 2020. It does not explicitly mention citizens (občan), but uses generic "osoba" (a person). The word citizen is only at the beginning of the document (… Anonymizovaná data všech občanů ČR), which is a summary of the request (FOIA), not part of the response itself.
From the "basic information" section:
Každý záznam v sadě obsahuje informace o jedné osobě včetně demografických údajů (pohlaví, rok narození). Technicky je tato datová sada vytvořena kombinací informací z očkovacího modulu ISIN a databáze zemřelých. Osoby, které nejsou evidovány v žádném z těchto systémů, jsou dopočítány na základě demografických dat z 1. ledna 2020 a počtu narozených v letech 2020-2022. - Every record contains information about single person (again - person, not citizen) including demographic details. Technically, this dataset was created by combining data from vaccination module of ISIN (information system of infectious diseases) and registry of deaths. Data for persons who are not registered in either of those systems are calculated based on demographical data from 1st of January 2020 and number of births in 2020-2022.
As I said - given that part of the dataset has been extrapolated from demographic trends and the constant use of person instead of citizen, I think further clarifications would be needed to be sure how they got to >11M records (the FOIA response itself mentions only "more than 10 milion records"). One thing I can think of are the Ukrainian refugees - official numbers were something around 350.000 registered + about a same number of unregistered ones approx. a year ago. Those refugees should have same access to health insurance and health care services as Czech citizens so if they were included (being persons), it could add up.
Absolutely excellent insight (Substack really needs a feature to allow the pinning of sub-comments). Their method of compliance is strange then - the FOIA asks for citizens but the government throws 'persons' (which, as you point out, can include non-citizens, which technically doesn't meet the requirement).
The issue with including non-citizens is their residence is usually transient. So if, say, ~300,000 got the shot but then moved on, their deaths won't be recorded (so it looks like the shot is safe, but in reality the deaths have been transferred to another country).
Thank you for spotting the geographical error. I will adjust the reference from Czechoslovakia to Czechia/Czech Republic. I'm a bit old school and I had assumed (incorrectly) Czech was short for Czechoslovakia, error is entirely mine.
I will likely write up an addendum into the end of the article including your observations.
Fyi-
Shedding safety protocol from the Pfizer clinical trial - I doubt they ever wanted "herd immunity ", I believe it was herd saturation they wanted.
This is why I take natto etc because I believe the shedding is real.
To the best of my knowledge all gene therapies must be assessed for the shedding potential due to the risk.
"Inhalation or skin contact" was the exact wording in Pfizer's clinical trial protocol document (linked below). Pfizer *anticipated* that people coming into contact with the study participants (the ones receiving the Pfizer "vaccines") either via “inhalation or skin contact” might exhibit SAEs (serious adverse events) or AEs (adverse events). read section 10.4.1, (pages 132 to 133), where it states, and I quote: "Male participants are eligible to participate [in the study, where they would receive the Pfizer Covid "vaccines"] if they agree to the following requirements during the intervention period for at least 28 days after the last dose of study intervention [the "vaccines"], which corresponds to the time needed to eliminate reproductive safety risk of the study intervention(s)." Read that part and what follows, as men receiving the jabs are then told to REFRAIN from having sex with a "female of childbearing potential." How many men taking the Covid jab have been warned not to have sex "for at least 28 days" after their 2nd Covid jab? According to this Pfizer document, anyone not knowing about that warning has potential to cause "reproductive safety risk”.
Also be sure to read sections 8.3.5.1 to 8.3.5.3 (pages 67 to 69) -- Pfizer anticipated what is now being referred to as "shedding" of the vaccine contents from the vaxxed to the unvaxxed. https://media.tghn.org/medialibrary/2020/11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020_Pfizer_BioNTech.pdf