Death Rate higher at the beginning of rollout in my opinion is due to prioritizing of older people.

Expand full comment

Hi! Thanks for the analysis. Very informative. Have you seen this article by Steve Kirsch? Perhaps the deaths went down over time because the vials don't contain mRNA? I'm curious to know how many severe adverse events are associated with later lots.


Expand full comment
Aug 2, 2022Liked by Jason Morphett PhD

Thank you for the research, great article and info!

My following speculations are in response to your question about "why" we think there may be a strong signal in the beginning of the rollout. In thinking about the injectables from a nanomaterial and R&D perspective, it would be pertinent to know the consistency of nanoparticle sizes from lot to lot. Properties of nanoparticles can be profoundly different when comparing a 10nm vs 100nm particle due to active surface area alone - hence, 0.3 mcg of 10nm particles can have substantially different response compared to 0.3 mcg of 100nm particles. Also, nanoparticles can be unstable and the storage conditions of these genetic products seem to suggest that they are in fact unstable when compared to traditional vaccines. Nanoparticles tend to agglomerate when they are unstable leading to large particle sizes which is one of the reasons why the solution can go from clear to hazy - the larger particles resulting from agglomeration are finally large enough to reflect light causing us to see the haze. Agglomeration whether from bad GMP, storage and/or handling could potentially make the injectable less potent simply due to the fact that the agglomerated lipid nanoparticles (essentially drug delivery vehicles) are not protecting and delivering the intended optimum dosage of active mRNA. I often find myself wondering if early roll-out lots were experimental formulations which got tweaked when they got the "oh sh$t" signals.

Expand full comment

Nicely, nicely done, sir.

To answer your question, I'll offer that I think it mostly some combination of (a), (b), and (c). Pfizer is not just among the largest pharmaceutical companies - it's something like the 33rd largest company in the world. They absolutely know what the data "says" and what they want it to say.

They've also been amending their application and clinical protocol for BNT162b2 as they've gone along - with FDA willing agreement (and legal cover). (There's an NEJM article that talks explicitly about the differences b/w BNT162b1 than 162b2 - w/ the former having inexplicably higher AEs, although coming in "identical platforms."

It also helps them that the CDC refuses to calculate the URF (the Under Reporting Factor) for using a passive adverse event tracking system like VAERS, even though their own contract expert report and study told them VAERS was likely only catching 1-10% of AEs.

Something similar was notice during the DOD's rollout of the anthrax vaccine in the late 1990's. A few early squadrons got decimated by AEs among pilots, man of whom were also in the Reserves and flew for the airlines - thus dooming them to loss of flight statuses - in the military, and for AA/USAir/SWA/FedEx... the one that pays the mortgage.

Word like that travels fast in that community - and ones like it - and the resistance followed almost instantly. That's why the military has so much "vaccine hesitation" now. A bad lot rollout on the east coast is news on the west coast within a few weeks of the AEs hitting in high enough numbers, no matter what the official propaganda says.

Expand full comment

Thank you for this information! Great substack.

Expand full comment