Steve Kirsch has made a critical finding in the record-level data from Czechia obtained via Freedom of Information request.
First, let’s just toy with an idea.
If a widely given drug caused death in one in 1,000, what would the impact be?
For young people the impact would be astounding. There would be a huge number of extra deaths and a stunning number of total deaths compared to those who did not take the drug. For 100,000 people there would be only 55 background deaths and 100 extra deaths. Comparing two similar sized populations the overall mortality would be 155 ÷ 55 = 2.82 times more, i.e., 182% higher.
For old people the impact would be much more subtle. For example, around 2% of people aged 80-89 will die in a year. For 100,000 people there would be 2,000 background deaths and only 100 extra deaths. Comparing two similar sized populations the overall mortality would be 2,100 ÷ 2,000 = 1.05 time more, i.e., just 5% higher.
Ultimately any signal would be much clearer in the young.
The Czech Government has released record-level data for 10 million people. The clever analysis Steve has done is based on the assumption that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine was harmless. It can then act as a ‘placebo’ group. It is an excellent ‘placebo’ group because confounders around health and socioeconomic variables are accounted for as the brands were distributed randomly. All that is needed is to compare the overall mortality rate in the year following the first dose in the Moderna group with the Pfizer group. Barely any Moderna doses were given in January and the sick were being prioritised still in February so the graph below shows only March onwards. The x-axis is year of age and the y-axis is how much higher (or lower) the Moderna mortality rate is than the Pfizer mortality rate at that year of age, where a value of 1 means the mortality rates are the same. At all ages there were more deaths in the Moderna group – around 50% more in the non-elderly and around 20% more for those in their 70s and 80s. The impact on the young was higher, in line with the dilution effect due to higher background deaths in the old described above.
Unless someone can show that Moderna was given to those more likely to die in every age group and throughout the time period (which is unlikely) then this is compelling evidence that Moderna really was more deadly.
It’s not just a difference in efficacy, i.e., Pfizer preventing more Covid deaths. If it had been there would have been periods when the difference should have disappeared entirely, such as June-October 2021 when Covid deaths were at a low, but the chart below shows that isn’t the case.
For completeness, here is the same graph for January-June when Covid rates were high – the pattern is similar.
A significant number of Czech citizens also had AstraZeneca and their mortality was similar to Moderna’s. The use of Pfizer as a ‘placebo’ group in the above analysis doesn’t mean the Pfizer vaccine was safe. It just shows the Moderna vaccine was less safe.
There is more that can be learnt from these data but this is the first big finding that needs addressing.
Dr. Clare Craig is a diagnostic pathologist and Co-Chair of the HART group. This article first appeared on her Substack. She is the author of Expired – Covid the untold story.
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.
Covid antibodies will of course diminish over time… but T-cell immunity will remain for the longer-term, at least for those who have had the virus rather than the experimental biological agent.
Where is the government programme to test T-cell immunity in the community?
No one wants to talk about T-cell testing; there is an FDA approved test, but nothing in the UK as of yet, I believe.
Plenty of people talking about T-cell based testing.
Fact is it remains hard and time consuming to do. The only recent attempts at rapid tests still have mixed results.
They’re of limited use.
Both natural and vaccination based infection stimulate good T cell responses.
“They’re of limited use.” Maybe. The same could be said for a lot of the other testing that goes on, at great expense. A lot of effort has gone into vaccines, and a lot of money into many other things. But not much that I can see has gone into existing or new treatments or attempts to properly understand how covid spreads and prior immunity. Driven by agenda, not desire for truth.
“limited use” … ???
I’d say a hell of a lot have served no useful purpose, and many measures have exacerbated harm.
Bottom line : this is a very ordinary virus that just requires the accepted measures for management, and an adequately prepared and resourced healthcare system.
Yes indeed. I guess I was writing from the POV of someone who believes (or pretends to) that covid is unprecedented – if you believe this why are you not calling out the lack of effort to understand it better. The only thing believers do is call for more lockdowns and vaccines.
I guess the literal tens of thousands of pre-prints and peer reviewed studies on SARs2 as people try to understand it totally passed you by?
Part of the problem is this IS the most studied virus in history. We’re finding things out we didn’t expect but that might not be terribly unusual elsewhere – but we just never looked.
Well, I guess they did. But judging by what various govts and other bodies are actually doing, none of these studies are very useful – or they are ignored.
Or more accurately, you haven’t read any of them, have no idea of any of them so are in no position at all to even begin to judge what the govts or various bodies policies are or are not based on.
Well one assumes they all confirm govt policy from the start has been the best approach, as that is what they have done. Seems unlikely to me.
You may recall that many months ago when asked why arrivals at airports and ferry terminals were still not routinely tested for Covid the government response was
‘Such tests are of “limited use because of the large numbers of false results such tests throw up”.
Sort of showed the testing scam up a bit really though it didn’t gain much traction in the press.
One of the features of this scam has been the way in which the government can turn on a sixpence, and the public will go on grazing without lifting their heads at the sudden movement.
It’s completely weird. Animal Farm translated into real life. Four legs bad, two legs good?!
Thy’re of limited profit
I had to downvoted realarthurdent on account of that fact. He’s dim.
Can be done in Harley St I believe, and I’m looking into it – although it will cost a bit
Not sure how accurate but it’s something I’m intensely curious about and owe to self.
I’d rather know one way or the other although if anyone knows it’s a waste of time, please say (fon excepted – I think we all know what you’d have to say so save your breath)
T-Cells and Ivermectin are verboten.
Verboten other than the 22,000 Scholar articles on T-cells and SARs2?
Or the 2,800 articles and citations on Ivermectin?
So why aren’t they authorising the use of ivermectin then?… Because the moment there is an effective treatment for c19 the emergency authorisation for the vaccines will be revoked.
Why aren’t they?
Because quite simply there is no good peer reviewed data to suggest its safe or effective and none providing any useful clinical use protocol.
You’d know that if you browsed the studies rather than just picking whatever dubious quality ones are supplied by your conspiracy theory website of choice.
So about as much evidence as there exists regarding efficacy and risk analysis for mass testing of a healthy population, facemasks for children, facemasks outdoors, and stay at home orders then.
Correct.
There’s no evidence any of that works.
Neither is there any for Ivermectin being in any way beneficial.
Very good. In that case I will offer one observation with good will. It is all well and good pointing at the quantity of research going on in areas related to SarsCov2/Covid19 as evidence of open debate. But that is clearly not reflective what is occurring in the wider public domain, where evidence based ‘facts’ are clearly in short supply. Pointing at the layman and effectively saying “you don’t understand this dummy” does nothing to bridge that divide.
https://swprs.org/who-preliminary-review-confirms-ivermectin-effectiveness/
You obviously don’t read the studies. I think it’s called cherry picking. The fact is it’s very safe in the recommended doses for, for instance, the treatment of parasites. If I’m on death’s door and they want to stick a tube in my lungs or give me 3mg of Ivermectin, I hope I’m able to gasp out “I’ll take the tablet, please”. I’ll even take the dog’s tablet.
It’s funny, when you google it, the recommendation for not taking veterinary Ivermectin is that it’s used to treat animals weighing up to a ton, so you might overdose…….
.https://swprs.org/who-preliminary-review-confirms-ivermectin-effectiveness/
This is a WHO study on the use of Ivermectin for the treatment of Civid 19.
No apology needed, just spread it.
Why do we need any government testing for a bad flu? This appears to be all about ever more dependence on Big Pharma and slavish devotion to modelling experts.
And at the end we have perpetual development of yet more experimental vaxxes for a virus (and its mutations) that is endemic (ie unstoppable) but with a survival rate greater than a seasonal flu (according to WHO).
And so it goes around inflated test results > unnecessary lockdown > experimental vaxx > mutant found > more lockdown > inflated test results > unnecessary lockdown > experimental vaxx > mutant found etc….
Meanwhile kiss your natural immune system (and culture, and economy…) goodbye.
No mention of T cell immunity as others have said.
Here’s an interesting article that does mention T cells. It’s beyond my skill level to evaluate it, but the article and the paper it’s based on are certainly interesting
https://market-ticker.org/post=242205
There are over 20,000 articles and citations on T-cell response and SARs2.
How in anyones view is this “no mention” ?!
I was talking about this Lockdown Sceptics article having no mention of T cell response, despite it’s central importance in immunity.
That’s great. Job done then. Back to normal…..
Bozo:…….erm, hang on a minute. We have been reliably informed that there are one, two maybe three, variants of variants on the way, possibly by Summer, or Autumn but definitely by Winter and millions of you are going to die so to keep the deaths manageable we will continue with ALL restrictions and house arrest.
Now go and say your prayers, you will need them.
‘die’??? No no no, it’s ‘SADLY die’. Please use the right terminology.
unless they get vaccinated by the booster to mop up the variants.
Yeah, that’s exactly what Boris will say.
And then lockdown for Xmas anyway.
And that’s not taking account of the aliens.
‘suggest’ ‘estimate’ ‘likely’ that the moon is made of cheese.
The ONS use models to estimate the likely numbers so they can suggest they know anything. Gone are the days of real collected data.
and the other 20+% have natural immunity.
Towards the end of his post Michael Curzon links to the Daily Mail
‘number of adults with antibodies could be higher than ONS is reporting’
Their headline includes
“Hugs could be back say experts ! “.
About 70-75% of the commenters are saying
‘what planet are you on ? I’ve never stopped hugging’ and numerous ‘mutant variants’ thereof.
Lockdown is finished bozo, in Gods name Go and take the others with you.
This was in the Spectator lunchtime email – note the recognition of T cell immunity which is missing from the Sky News report above, and the commenters below have noted.
See my posts above. “Prevalence” rates are probably much higher than the experts say … because the virus began to spread much earlier than the experts say.
If you haven’t got antibodies after 18 months of this doing the rounds then you must be a hermit. That 30% are probably false negatives.
That or 30% got it so mildly their immune systems just brushed it off and didn’t bother creating the antibodies – why would you if its so mild?
Either way – its done and dusted – lets open up fully so we can go to the pub and laugh at what a bunch of cretins our politicians and their advisers are.
I strongly suspect that most of those who have tested positive for antibodies did so because they had recently received a vaccine.
See link: “After about two months, however, just 16.7 percent of the patients had a potent antibody response. … People are producing a reasonable antibody response to the virus, but it’s waning over a short period of time and depending on how high your peak is, that determines how long the antibodies are staying around,” Katie Doores, lead author on the study at King’s College London …”
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/507043-virus-immunity-in-recovered-patients-may-be-gone-in-months-researchers-say
But this doesn’t mean that people who had contracted the virus are not immune. Apparently, much longer-lasting “natural immunity” is conferred not by antibodies proper but by by T and B cells. For “most” people, this immunity lasts at least 8 months – maybe years or even a lifetime.
To me, this means that a lot more people have had COVID than is widely accepted – which means that we are much closer to hypothetical “herd immunity” levels than most appreciate.
Some of us believe COVID was “spreading” weeks if not months before the Wuhan outbreak. Certainly, months before the lockdowns of March 2020.
I’m one of the probably millions of people who suspect they had COVID before it was said to be circulating in the world. A fair percent of these people, like myself, got antibody tests in May or later. For the vast majority of such people (but, importantly, not all), these tests came back “negative” for antibodies.
The common conclusion: “Oh, we didn’t have COVID.” But I don’t think we should reach this conclusion based on the antibody study I cite above. It’s very possible that at least some of us did have the virus and/or COVID but, by the time we got our antibody tests, we didn’t have enough antibodies remaining to be detected with the tests.
To me, the logical inferences of likely early spread are seismic and myriad. For example, any efforts to “lockdown” society – to “stop” or “slow” virus spread – in early March 2020 were futile and certainly happened months too late. Also, those trying to estimate what percentage of the population has contracted the virus by now are beginning their “counts” months later than they should.
Current estimates say that 20 to 43 percent of the population may have been (naturally) exposed to the virus by now. In my opinion, a better estimate might be 40 to 70 percent. That is, it’s very possible we are almost at “herd immunity” right now … and this doesn’t count the percentage of people who have now been vaccinated.
The greatest (and still untold) story about COVID is when it actually started to spread. Compelling evidence exists that this spread began at least by November 2019, probably earlier.
Why has there been no serious inquiry that would connect some dots that might better establish the “early spread” conclusion? Skeptics like myself can only speculate … which I do below.
Regarding the question of why no serious or “legitimate” investigation has been commissioned by authorities (or journalists) into the “early spread” hypothesis, I offer my own opinions in this piece (which, amazingly, was actually published).
https://uncoverdc.com/2020/07/13/covid-19-is-a-real-search-for-the-truth-now-taboo/
In my post above, I point out that the vast majority of people who thought they had COVID (and later got an antibody test in an effort to “confirm” this), did test “negative” for antibodies in April or May 2020.
However, this was not the case for everyone. As my journalism and research document, at least 16 Americans who had COVID symptoms in November and December did get subsequent antibody tests … that came back “positive.”
Significantly, none of these Americans had visited China. Just as significantly, these individuals lived in four different geographically-dispersed states – Washington, New Jersey, Alabama and south Florida.
So the obvious question becomes: How did all these people living thousands of miles away from one another all contract the virus if it was not “spreading?” My answer, which I think employs logic, is that the only way ALL of these people could have contracted the virus was that it was “spreading” … and if the virus had spread from Washington state to New Jersey to Alabama and to south Florida … it was spreading “widely.”
Another important and unanswered question is this: Why didn’t the CDC at least interview and test these 16 people people, everyone of whom’s diagnosis was “confirmed” by antibody tests? (Several of these people have now tested positive for antibodies multiple time. Brandie McCain, who had COVID symptoms in December 2019, has now had FOUR positive antibody tests).
Bolstering my hypothesis of “early spread” is a CDC study of archived units of blood collected by the American Red Cross in NINE states. Some of this blood was collected over just three days in mid-December 2019 and the balance was collected in mid-January 2020.
This study, which for some reason generated little interest or comment (and, inexplicably, no follow-up or additional studies or other units of “archived” blood supplies), concluded that 1.42 percent of the tested blood samples showed signs of COVID infection. That doesn’t sound like much, but when one extrapolates a “positive” sample of 1.42 percent to the entire American population, we get 4.7 million likely or possible cases.
If approximately five million Americans already had been exposed to COVID between mid-December 2019 and mid-January 2020, how many people do we think had been exposed by March 2020?
Also, readers interested in this topic, should not forget that legions of Americans were sick with the “flu” in December 2019 and January 2020. According to CDC estimates, this number could have been as high as 55 million Americans (16.6 percent of the population). I’d also note that of those sick people who went to the doctor complaining of flu like symptoms, the vast majority (70 to 80 percent, per my research) actually tested “negative” for influenza.
Now I’m not saying all 35 to 55 million of the people sick with an “influenza-like illness” (ILI) had COVID in the “virus season” of 2019-2020 …. but if only 10 percent – or 20 percent – actually had COVID … this could be America’s “first wave” of COVID right there.
The “hole” in my hypothesis is that there’s no way “health officials” could have “missed” a pandemic this widespread … the spike in deaths would have simply been too great to miss.
I acknowledge that NATIONAL death statistics do not seem to show a spike in deaths in, say, January or February 2020. In America, this spike actually commences around the second week of March (which in itself is interesting as only a handful of Americans were supposed to have had COVID by this date. As the time period from infection to death from COVID is usually about 25 days, people who began to die in greater numbers in mid-March must have been infected in mid-February … when officials say there was only a handful of cases in the entire country).
However, I’ve also looked at “mortality data” from at least a dozen states, and it seems there WAS a noticeable jump in deaths in at least 10 states, and this “spike” in deaths above the norm began before March 2020.
For example, If memory serves, mortality data from Michigan shows a big spike in deaths above the norm in the age cohorts of 65 and older, and this spike began weeks before mid-March 2020. This is significant as any analysis of death rates needs to focus on the age cohorts that experience the greatest risk from COVID.
That is, I wouldn’t expect to find significant spikes in death rates in December and January among people under the age of 60. COVID rarely kills people in this category. But I would expect to see a noticeable spike in deaths among older citizens, at least in a fair number of states.
I’d also note that at least 50 percent of the “early deaths” from COVID – at least in the early weeks and months of the pandemic – occurred among nursing home residents.
I acknowledge that it would “fit” my hypothesis better if I could find examples of large numbers of deaths among nursing home residents prior to, say, February 2020. This said, I also think it’s possible there WERE more deaths of nursing home residents in this earlier time frame. My guess would be that these deaths were just attributed to pneumonia, influenza, “old age” or whatever. FWIW, I have found sources – including county coroners – who DID note an increase in deaths among older residents prior to COVID. Some of these were “home health” patients or dementia patients.
Still, I’ve been unable to find published reports showing abnormal spikes of “nursing home” deaths between December 2019 and February 2020. This is one reason I made this post: Maybe better mines than my own can offer possible explanations. (Maybe the virus had not yet reached “critical mass” among nursing home residents, or maybe there were some nursing homes that experienced a rash of deaths in the months prior to March 2020?)
I’d also point out that my hypothesis posits that the virus began to spread in America maybe in November. It follows that deaths – in large (or noticeable) numbers – wouldn’t begin until maybe a month later. The number of deaths that would be expected to occur would be some fraction of the total number of cases at a given period of time.
If 5 million Americans had COVID on January 15th (a possible figure if the results of the Red Cross Blood study was generalized to the entire population), how many “extra” deaths would we expect to be recorded? If COVID kills 1-in-10,000 Americans who contract the virus, this number would only be 500 “extra” deaths (a figure so small it could easily be “lost” in national mortality data). Even if COVID kills 1-in-1,000 people who contract the virus, this would still be just 5,000 “extra” deaths, with these “extra” deaths spread out over 50 states over two or three months.
Again, I’m searching for possible explanations that could plausibly explain how the virus could have been spreading throughout the country before March without a noticeable national uptick of deaths happening until March 2020. I’m not sure what these explanations may be, but I do believe plausible explanations may exist.
I’d also add that if the virus was spreading, it was spreading faster among the most active cohorts of the population, which would be the younger age cohorts – which includes those unlikely to die from the virus. (However, many of these people would be expected to become “sick,” which clearly DID happen in eye-opening numbers).
For those who dismiss this hypothesis, I would ask if they can at least offer a plausible theory that would explain how at least 16 Americans who were sick with COVID symptoms in November and December 2019 later tested positive for COVID antibodies, as well as offer plausible alternative theories that would account for the findings of the Red Cross blood study.
And, again, I do believe it’s significant that so many people in America (and the world) were sick with “something” that was NOT influenza in the weeks and months before COVID became the global story.
The chronology of the origin and “spread” of this virus is clearly unknown. I’d go so far to say that efforts to “connect the dots” and provide evidence of “early spread” seems to be off-limits to journalistic inquiry, as well as to “public health official” inquiry.
As you can probably tell, I find this both bizarre and maddening. I do appreciate that I’m able to publish a few of my thoughts on this subject at a site created for those who might be skeptical of the official COVID narrative.
We certainly had a covid-like illness here in Suffolk UK between october 2019 and february 2020, peaking in december, and I’ve heard the same in parts of the West Country, ie the other side of the UK.
Most people weren’t ill enough to visit their doctors but the ones who did were told thetre was a “nasty virus doing the rounds”
And so it should have stayed.
Would be interesting to see the timing of this early spike in different regions.
One family I know reckon they caught it from their son, who had been skiing in France and returned with a “nasty cough”. Everyone else in the family caught it but with hugely varying degrees of symptoms. Add in the findings in sewage and blood samples in Italy and Spain and the early onset lloks highly plausible