Moderna DOUBLES the Chance of Infant Death, Compared to Pfizer
Another Slide from CDC Presentation Shows Statistically Significant Difference
CDC’s own presentation shows that being given a higher-dose Moderna vaccine during pregnancy, almost DOUBLES the chance of neonatal death, compared to women who received the lower-dose Pfizer vaccine.
How can Covid vaccine given during pregnancy be safe and NOT affect infant deaths, if infant death rate for Moderna-inoculated women is double the infant death level for Pfizer-inoculated women and the difference is statistically significant?
A week ago, I posted an article, based on a CDC’s own presentation, showing that Moderna vaccine, used during pregnancy, causes 42% MORE miscarriages than the Pfizer vaccine. I explained this as a dose-response relationship, due to Moderna’s higher dose.
I decided to look at the presentation again. It turns out that another slide of the presentation contained another shocking finding:
Moderna’s Covid vaccine used during pregnancy almost doubles (93.48% increase) the chance of neonatal death (infant death) compared to the Pfizer vaccine, and the differences are at the level of statistical significance. (p < 0.05)
Both this article, as well as my previous article, use the same exact statistical methodology, except that different outcomes are analyzed. So I will be borrowing explanation parts of my previous article just to make this article a clear, standalone piece for those who did not read the previous one.
Look at CDC Presentation Slide 33.
Why is Moderna’s rate of “infant deaths” (0.2) double the rate of Pfizer’s infant deaths (0.1)? Let’s look closely and do proper calculations without excessive rounding.
The number of “live births” was 20,726. Referring to previous Slide 32: 12,253 were Pfizer live births and 7,916 were Moderna live births (we ignore J&J). Here are the numbers all put together:
So, our preliminary calculation suggests that Moderna-inoculated women are 93.48% more likely to encounter infant death, than Pfizer-inoculated women.
Is this Difference Meaningful?
(text reused from my previous article)
In statistics, this is called a “two-sample proportion comparison”. We have two samples: the Moderna group and the Pfizer group. We can assume that the groups are identically sampled from the population, except their vaccines — and outcomes — differ.
One group (Moderna) has a 93.48% higher rate of infant death than the other group (Pfizer). Is this a statistical fluke, or is this meaningful?
Statisticians use a “two-proportion Z-test” to check if the difference could be due to a random chance, or not. Skipping some statistical minutiae, the greater the size of the samples, and the higher difference in proportions (rate of infant death), the less likely the possibility that the between-group difference is due to random chance.
To give an example of a statistically meaningless comparison, suppose that you met 5 men and 5 women on the street. Three women out of 5 wore hats and only two men out of 5 wore hats. Could you conclude, from this tiny sample, that women are more likely to wear hats in general? Of course not, as your samples are way too small!
However, if you sampled thousands of men and women for hat-wearing, on different streets and at differing times, and found that one gender wears hats 93.48% more often, THEN you would be able to make meaningful conclusions!
Contrary to the above example of 5 men and women, samples of Moderna and Pfizer women are HUGE — in the THOUSANDS. Is the difference of outcomes between these groups meaningful?
We can plug the numbers into the Statology Two-Proportion Z-Test calculator:
The calculator tells us (P-value of less than 0.05) that these samples ARE different, and the difference has statistical significance. In other words, this is not likely to be a chance difference.
The explanation is, likely, that we are seeing a dose-response relationship! Moderna is a higher dose injection — and Moderna-injected women have almost double the chance of infant death! If that is the case — and we’d need to confirm it more — this is all proof we need to know that Covid vaccines affect infant deaths.
If Covid vaccines are safe for pregnancy and do NOT affect infant deaths, how come the rate of infant death for Moderna is 93.48% higher than the same rate for Pfizer, with the difference having statistical significance?
How come nobody at the CDC asked this question?
How come our media is silent on this?
In the statistical sample of 20,726 live births, about half of 15 infant deaths in the Moderna group would be prevented — if they were given Pfizer instead. That is seven or eight infants who did not have to die! If you put them on a sofa they would look like this:
Would even more infant deaths be prevented if the mothers were not vaccinated at all? This specific CDC presentation cannot answer this question, because it only compares Pfizer-vaccinated women to Moderna-vaccinated women. But a dose-response relationship between vaccine dose and death rate suggests so.
What do you think?