30% is actually quite low compared to other studies that claimed to show that Moderna is several times more toxic than what Steve Kirsch calls “Pfizer”, which is in fact BioNTech. And given that other studies show that Moderna is roughly 2x more effective (i.e. in preventing symptomatic “Covid”, whatever that is), this would mean that the risk/benefit of Moderna is in fact superior.

On the other hand, if one thinks that neither have any real efficacy, then the entire discussion is pointless. Then no level of risk is acceptable. Who cares if one is more likely to kill you than the other?

I don’t understand why this discussion is even taking place. The Czech data might have some interest. But I would have thought the main interest is whether it replicates the findings of the Danish batch variability study. If it does, then this would be further proof that BioNTech adulterated its own product. The least toxic batches would be “placebos”, in the sense of not containing the active drug substance, i.e. the mRNA. This would represent an incredible act of corporate malfeasance and it will have occurred with the complicity of the German regulator. See here for an explanation: dailysceptic.org/2024/0…

Shouldn’t we be looking at this issue rather than whether arsenic is “better” than cyanide?