Czech data shows that those who got the Moderna vaccine died more


The comorbidity index (DCCI) for the Pfizer v. Moderna groups was comparable (SMD around .05), but mortality was consistently higher for Moderna. The most likely explanation: Moderna was more deadly.

Steve Kirsch

Executive summary

For the first time, I show the directly standardized survival curves for each 5 year age group in the Czech Republic using the publicly released record-level data.

This data consistently shows the people who got the Moderna vaccine were much more likely to die than those of the same age who got the Pfizer shot. The relative risk (RR) was >1.5 for those under age 60 which is a huge difference.

The comorbidity distribution for both groups of a given age range was very similar (SMD=.05)

This isn’t because Pfizer is more protective of a COVID death because the differences were not specific to COVID periods (and were too large to be explained by effectiveness differences).

There are two remaining explanations:

  1. The Moderna vaccine was more deadly

  2. There was a systematic distribution of vaccines in Czech Republic that no matter what age you were, if you were more likely to die, you were given the Moderna shots.

Explanation is 2 is much less likely because there was no systematic bias in vaccine distribution by brand, and even if there were, the fact that the DCCI distributions were similar and that the younger you were, the more pronounced the effect, would be unusual since 45 year old people are not concentrated in elderly homes and hospital beds.

So the most likely explanation is Moderna was more deadly.

Method

Results

Czech standardized cumulative mortality by birth band

The numerical results of the same data are in the table below. So if you were a 50 year old and got Moderna, you were 1.6x more likely to die than if you got Pfizer. That is a non-trivial difference.

Here’s the age 45-50 year old in detail with confidence bands to make things easier to see:

Standardized Czech survival curves for birth years 1970–1974

Could this be due to DCCI differences? We did matching within DCCI buckets. The results were consistent: Moderna more deadly.



Interpretation

Exact-week standardization removes major measured allocation differences, while similar DCCI distributions and weak DCCI attenuation make ordinary baseline-comorbidity selection an incomplete explanation. The remaining association is compatible with vaccine harm and makes that hypothesis more credible, but unmeasured allocation differences have not been excluded sufficiently to identify causation.

The allocation differences basically would have to be quite large and not be picked up by DCCI score differences. This seems very unlikely.

And for every age group, it was skewed to Moderna. No exceptions. That seems unlikely to happen by chance.

Summary

What I have produced in this article are the graphs honest health officials should be producing so they can show to themselves and the public that both vaccines were safe.

Yet, only one health official in the entire world has produced comparable graphs: Joe Ladapo in Florida. The Florida study found a 36% difference in non-COVID all-cause mortality between vaccine brands after doing an extremely strict matching of the underlying cohorts (their matching criteria was so strict they were only able to match 10% of the participants). They found Pfizer was more deadly in their study (non-COVID mortality differences which should be the same for both groups).

This suggests that both brands are toxic and that which brand is more toxic can vary depending on the distribution point. This shouldn’t be a surprise because there has been a lot written on LOT variability within a given brand (“how bad is my batch?”).

So taken together with the Florida study, it appears reasonable to rule out baseline cohort mortality differences which leaves only one viable explanation: it was the vaccine.

To me, the most stunning feature is that in both the Florida data and the Czech data, the mortality differences manifested themselves immediately after the shot and stayed constant over time.

So we have replication of this observation in a completely different dataset, one where cohort underlying health differences were ruled out by meticulous matching.

If anyone thinks they have another explanation for the Florida and Czech data other than it was caused by vaccine brand differences, please let me know in the comments.

If you’d like to thank me for my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Thanks.

https://kirschsubstack.com/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Who was the first pharaoh of Egypt?

Image
  Ancient Egypt by  World History Edu   ·  April 8, 2024 Delving into the origins of ancient Egypt’s dynastic period unravels the story of Narmer, a figure shrouded in myth and history, often credited as Egypt’s first pharaoh. In this exploration, World History Edu not only aims to uncover Narmer’s life and achievements but also to understand the historical and cultural significance of his reign, marking the dawn of pharaonic rule in one of history’s most fascinating civilizations. The Historical Context To grasp the magnitude of Narmer’s contributions, one must first appreciate the landscape of Egypt before his ascension. In the predynastic period, Egypt was divided into two major regions: Upper Egypt, the southern highlands, and Lower Egypt, the northern delta. Each region was composed of independent and often competing polities. The concept of a unified Egypt, both politically and culturally, was not yet a reality. Amidst this fragmented landscape, Narmer emerged ...
Read more