The Czech Republic record-level vaccine data are devastating to the “safe and effective” narrative, says Steve Kirsch, as he provides a new overview that explains why. Here’s the introduction.
Executive summary
I’ve written about the Czech Republic record level data earlier.
The reasons these data are so important include:
- Large, gold-standard official Government database.
- Simple methodology (one-year mortality rate after the shots).
- Huge safety signal for Moderna is easily found (at least a 30% increase in all-cause mortality).
- Confirmation from seven other data analyses showing Moderna is the more deadly vaccine.
- Lack of a viable explanation of the Czech data other than the Moderna shot increased the recipients’ all-cause mortality by 30%.
- Huge regulatory failure: no regulator on Earth bothered to look for any post-marketing safety signals.
- The epic failure in safety monitoring suggests other vaccines are similarly unsafe.
- These data demonstrate yet again the value of making public health data public worldwide. Yet today, not a single public official is calling for data transparency. The public should demand that lawmakers answer the question: “How many more people have to die before we have data transparency of record-level public health data?”
Bottom line: Keeping record-level public health data secret for all vaccines likely resulted in well over 10 million deaths worldwide from these shots. That’s right: governments worldwide killed their own citizens due to their failure to look at the data they collected post-rollout.
The public should demand that the record-level data be made publicly available for all vaccines in all countries and states so this can never happen again. Otherwise, it will.
Introduction
- Unimpeachable public health data. These are gold-standard Government data obtained under FOIA. It doesn’t get any better than this. This is ground truth data that have never been publicly revealed before for any vaccine ever. Privacy was assured because the date of birth was not disclosed.
- Simple unbiased methodology. We simply calculated the mortality rate for each five-year age range for each brand from the time of the shot. If the shots were safe, the mortality rates over one year for people who got their shots in the same period of time who were born in the same five-year age range should be nearly identical. We calculate a mortality rate ratio of MR of Moderna divided by MR of Pfizer. The result is 1.3 over a wide range of ages and time periods investigated.
- Clear results: Moderna increases all-cause mortality by 30%. The data showed very clearly that the Moderna vaccine increases the recipients’ all-cause mortality by at least 30% above Pfizer (the control). This happens for deaths that happened in both Covid and non-Covid periods. Even if we assume Pfizer doesn’t increase all-cause mortality (ACM) at all (even though we know it does from other research, but this is the most conservative assumption), then Moderna is a kill shot. It’s clear from these data that the Moderna shot is unsafe and should be stopped immediately.
- No viable alternative hypothesis that explains the data. Nobody can make a credible argument for anything other than the conclusions in #2. All the attempts to debunk the analysis fail. You’d have to believe that despite any evidence of a systemic bias, that pretty much everyone over 40 who was injected was assigned the Moderna brand whenever they were exactly 30% more likely to die within 12 months. If you flipped a coin 110 times and got heads every time, most people would conclude it’s an unfair coin. You can make an argument that it’s a fair coin and you just got unlucky, but that hypothesis is unlikely. This is the situation here. There were 110 different data points with sufficient counts to make a determination of the Mortality Rate Ratio (MRR) and Moderna was more deadly in 110 out of 110 opportunities.
- Epic fail of the regulators worldwide to detect huge safety signals. The regulators, public health authorities and medical community all had access to their own data and could have easily examined it and found the signal. It took me less than two days to find the signal. Yet all these experts chose not to look at their own data.
- The regulators didn’t notice such a huge safety signal for Moderna. This opens up the very real possibility that Pfizer is unsafe too and that other vaccines are unsafe as well. This research has exposed a huge flaw in vaccine safety monitoring. We have to re-examine how so many scientific studies could miss such a huge safety signal and adopt a methodology that reliably reports safety information.
- Accountability. There needs to be accountability so this never happens again. Moderna should be taken off the market and required to compensate people who have been harmed or killed. The CDC and FDA regulators in charge should be replaced by doctors and experts who correctly called out the vaccines as being unsafe. Instead of taking away their licence to practice medicine, we should be promoting these people to positions of responsibility in the regulatory agencies.
- Head in the sand mentality. Even after I pointed out the data and what it showed, only one public health official in the world is now examining their data using the methods I pointed out to confirm the safety signal. All the rest are ignoring the signal.
So in short, we have at least one very deadly vaccine with a huge signal that is impossible to miss and a level of incompetence for safety monitoring by regulators that is unprecedented.
Furthermore, the medical community isn’t upset by:
- the lack of data transparency (all countries and states should publish the public health data)
- the lack of safety analysis posted by regulators and health authorities.
They aren’t asking any questions, and they aren’t demanding any changes (such as data transparency for public health data). This is a serious problem that lawmakers worldwide should investigate.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The Bruno opener is a lie and slander. He was no scientist. He never said anything about heliocentricity. He said there were many universes, worlds and the implication of that is to refute Church teachings on Christ and God. It is also anti-science and has no proof. When asked for proof he engaged in mindless babble. He also practiced black magic. It was stupid to burn the idiot, who is a precursor to Hawking whose great ‘insight’ was entropy in black holes (easy on the relevancy and testability stevie….). Hawking has much in common with the non-scientist Bruno.
Copernicus a Catholic discovered heliocentricity. But it was Kepler’s math, another Christian, which provided the necessary calculations.
The Church in Rome funded Galileo who offered no proof of heliocentricity (tides he said), Jesuit astronomers predating Galileo already knew about celestial moons and their orbits.
The greatest reaction against heliocentricity came from….the academics who were invested in Ptolemy’s universe.. Nothing much has changed.
Without the Church you wouldn’t be sitting there in your comfortable modern world.
Let’s not discuss the ‘Enlightenments’ torching of art, books, healers, and scientists now. It was the ‘age of reason’ after all – abiogenesis, the quacksine fraud….etc
Are you really saying that the Christian Church is the fount of all knowledge?
A somewhat harsh comment a la Marin Mersenne, perhaps? Bruno was an inspired thinker: controversial, undisciplined, wayward and arrogant to be sure, but there’s no denying he was a deeply well-read philosopher – he was no idiot. And as philosophy and the modern concept of science share a lineage going back thousands of years (philosophy has been described as the ‘science of sciences’), the comparison in the article thus holds. Bruno’s views on God were resolutely theistic despite all attempts to prove otherwise, before or since – something he argued at his trial. As for heliocentricity, Kepler himself ‘…chided Galileo for not having acknowledged the contribution that others, including Bruno and himself’ had made to Galileo’s work Siderius Nuncius.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bruno/#UnivSoulUnivInteUnivMatt
When I studied Physics at Aberdeen University the subject was called “Natural Philosophy”.
Precisely.
So it’s much the same phenomenon as occurred in the 2000s, when people who questioned or rejected the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis were metaphorically burnt at the stake. Different field; different experts; different Imaginary Hobgoblin; same Fear; same UN; same WEF.
The big difference is that the populace is waking up and scepticism is now “out of the closet” and practically mainstream.
Censoring science for covid climate lies
Yellow Freedom Boards – next event
Thursday 10th November 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction B3408 London Rd &
John Nike Way, Binfield
Bracknell RG42 4FZ
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Were there 139 Covid deaths in teaching? Or 139 deaths within 28 days of a Covid test? I don’t think there was one death in schools in Sweden which stayed open pretty much all of the time, and at the very least, much longer than the UK..???
All schools for under 16s stayed open in Sweden.
I would say 139 deaths within 28 days of a covid test. You have to FOIA to get any more accurate information.
Our frontline warrior Maurice Snelling reports that as a licensee he dissented from the Lockdown Regime and daringly served mince pies in a postcode that was locked down. The neighbours snitched on him. He has now got six months on the naughty step, albeit for destroying the evidence and being “anti-establishment” rather than selling the pies. He may not survive.
You only mention the medical establishment and media for the censorship. The role of government in this needs to also be explored. In particular, did the government deploy personnel with experience/qualifications in psychological manipulation techniques to suppress dissent, both in terms of the original Covid response and for the vaccines?
Yes; the ‘Nudge Unit’
I thank these two doctors for the items professional wisdom throughout the pandemic and this article in the DS. I can see the intellectually considered reflection as to the numerous ways they and others were devalued, rubbished and censored.
However their polite mainstream reply to the horrible way they were treated will not rectify it as they need to consider taking some of these wolves to court. Polite and nice is NOT working .
“Polite and nice is NOT working.”
Precisely. Which is why the Oster article in The Atlantic has to be rubbished for the egregious nonsense and in its way, gaslighting that it is.
And this long Substack piece previously linked to by FL makes abundantly very clear why “polite and nice” is definitely not appropriate.
Worth reading in full, as we say round here.
No, Let’s Not: Perpetrators of Pandemic Authoritarianism Cannot Be Forgiven
https://merionwest.com/2022/11/07/no-lets-not-perpetrators-of-pandemic-authoritarianism-cannot-be-forgiven/
Yes thank you will look at your link tomorrow.
Science is never settled. Anyone who claims otherwise is denying science.
The Covid Dogma is a faith imposed by Globalist Bio-Pharmacy with an Agenda. The only scientific experts who can reasonably be trusted to tell the truth about the virus/jabs/adverse effects etc are those who are outside the Globalist Bio-Pharmacy construct.
Thanks Carl and Tom. It’s a shame the first comment on your piece is some nutty obscurantism about Heliocentrism. in any case your professionalism and integrity has given me hope for the future. We need proper humanist physician/scientists like you , Kuldorff and Battarchaya in charge of public health not the totalitarian Pharma-serving Gauleiters we have currently. Well done for all your great work and I recommend all of us to subscribe to the Oxford “Trust the evidence podcast” on Substack.