A summary of why the Czech Republic data is so devastating to the "safe and effective" narrative
Gold-standard data + simple analysis methodology + a huge safety signal (30% increased mortality) + 8 methods --> regulatory oversight epic fail.
Links to all articles on the Czech Republic data
A summary of why the Czech Republic data is so devastating to the "safe and effective" narrative: a high level overview of why this data is so devastating with links to everything. [ this article you are now reading ']
Attempts to debunk my "Moderna and Pfizer are kill shots" post fail badly: this article responds to the first set of attacks.
A closer look at the Czech Republic data confirms the mRNA vaccines are too deadly to be used: this article responds to the 2nd wave of attacks. summarizes that none of the attacks provided a hypothesis supported by data for the effect (just hand-waving attacks). It includes evidence that there was no systemic or systematic bias in the brand distribution. People were not allowed to choose the brand they got. And nobody had any clue which vaccine was safer. And it also has MORTALITY TABLES by 5 year age ranges showing that the mortality differences were consistent across 5 year age ranges and even widened as the cohort got younger.
Official Czech Republic record level data released Nov 2024 confirms Moderna has nearly 50% higher ACM than Pfizer (Jan 19, 2025). This uses the more recent dataset showing that Moderna has nearly a 50% higher 1 year mortality than Pfizer. This is not due to differential COVID efficacy (which is rounding error).
Czech record-level data shows Moderna recipients had up to a 50% higher death rate than Pfizer recipients: Now looking 2 years out, and in greater detail, and also added 95% confidence intervals and comorbidity index and still find a 50% difference. Even Henjin found a 47% mortality difference between Pfizer and Moderna.
The COVID vaccine: all risk, no benefit. Czech Republic age-standardardized mortality rate (ASMR) was 30% higher for Moderna than Pfizer. It's highly statistically significant (the 95% CI were VERY narrow).
Jeffrey Morris won't show us the correct analysis of the Czech Republic data. If my analysis is so wrong, why doesn’t Professor Morris show us the “correct” analysis? For that matter, why isn’t anyone showing us the “correct” analysis of this dispositive data source?
The Czech Republic record level data can be used to prove that the COVID vaccines had no mortality benefits which shows that the mortality differences between vaxxed and unvaxxed during no COVID periods was the same as during high COVID periods. In short, the vaccines didn’t protect. It was all selection bias.
Confirmation of these results by others
My personal favorite is Figure 5 in Double checking the claims about Moderna which showed that if you compared a month when Pfizer had a much larger comorbidity % (7.2% vs. 1.7%=4.2X higher comorbidities for Pfizer) the huge mortality difference persisted (55/42= 30% higher for Moderna).
Clare Craig: Moderna was more deadly than Pfizer
Clare Craig: Why I am backing Steve Kirsch on the Czech data / The attackers are wrong
Clare Craig: Double checking the claims about Moderna. See note above about Figure 5.
Jessica Rose: The Czech mortality data - is Moderna deathier than Pfizer? My own very preliminary analysis.
Henjin: Confirmed a 47% mortality difference between Moderna and Pfizer.
Here is Jessica’s chart when she used the same underlying data, but using her own independently written code to analyze it, she got the same numbers:
Executive summary
I’ve written about the Czech Republic record level data earlier. This is a summary article covering the main points.
The reasons this data is so important include:
Large, gold standard official government database
Simple methodology (1 year mortality rate after the shots).
If the vaccines were safe, the mortality rate of a each age cohort should be independent of vaccine brand injected. But it isn’t.
The Moderna shots caused a 30% higher all-cause mortality during COVID and non-COVID periods.
The Czech health authorities refuse to comment. The Czech media is silent.
Confirmation from 9 other data analyses showing Moderna is the more deadly vaccine
Lack of a viable alternative explanation of the higher mortality for Moderna. The only hypothesis that fits is that the vaccine increased all-cause mortality by 30%.
This is a problem because vaccines are supposed to decrease all-cause mortality.
Huge regulatory failure: no regulator on Earth bothered to look for any post-marketing safety signals.
No regulator has ever published a 1 year mortality rate by brand in 5 year age brackets. They don’t even do the analysis internally.
This epic failure in safety monitoring suggests other vaccines are similarly unsafe
This data demonstrates 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 10M 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. This is gold-standard government data obtained under FOIA. It doesn’t get any better than this. This is ground truth data that has 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 5 year age range for each brand from the time of the shot. If the shots were safe, the mortality rates over 1 year for people who got their shots in the same period of time who were born in the same 5 year age range should be nearly identical. We calculate a mortality rate ratio of MR of Moderna / 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 recipient’s 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 this 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 no 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 110/110 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 2 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 license 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.
Where to find the data
I’ve posted the data, code, and analysis results on my github.
What the data shows
The most jaw dropping result is from the time series by brand spreadsheet where we looked at mortality for Doses 1,2,3 for each vaccine type and looked at total mortality 90 weeks from the shot by age. Here’s the summary:
In short, Moderna killed around 1.3X more people that Pfizer for every 5 year age bad with sufficient data. Since there was no systemic or systematic bias for distribution by brand, this sort of consistency is hard to explain if both vaccines are perfectly safe.
Here are 2 graphs that were produced by Henjin who is an independent data scientist who believes that the COVID vaccines are safe and effective.
For each graph, I will tell you what the graph means.
This is a graph of age-standardized mortality rates (ASMR) over time for people who got a Pfizer first dose vs. a Moderna first dose.
Note that virtually all people didn’t switch brands on the second shot since they were told not to. So the graph is effectively a brand comparison. If we plotted “pure brands” (i.e., got the same dose for 1 and 2), the plot would be very similar.
Observe the following from the graph:
No matter what month you look, Moderna is more deadly than Pfizer.
The “gap” is consistent, no matter when you look (high or low COVID periods). That’s a huge problem since if the vaccines were safe and effective, they should be on top of each other during non-COVID and only slightly separate during COVID (if one was more protective than the other). The gap during non-COVID periods means the Moderna vaccine has at least a 30% higher ACM than baseline ACM. That is a train wreck requiring immediate revocation in any sane society.
When comorbidities are highest (start of rollout) or lowest (everyone else is added to the mix diluting the comorbidity effect), the separation between the vaccine mortality curves remains constant which means it likely wasn’t caused by comorbidities: there is no correlation between comorbidities and MR
The gap size between the M and P shots didn’t widen or narrow during COVID periods meaning both vaccines had the same protection against COVID death (which appears to be ZERO) since the VA study showed the COVID shots didn’t impact probability of being hospitalized.
People who get vaccinated have increased mortality from the time from the first shot in 2021 compared to the unvaccinated (background death rate) which is falling. For example, compare the mortality rates in summer 2021 to summer 2022. So this can’t be explained by socioeconomic status (SES) because the healthier SES group (who presumably got Pfizer) should have maintained their health difference over time if this were a safe vaccine. They shouldn’t lose ground to the unvaccinated. There is a healthy vaccinee effect, but it only lasts 3 weeks; after that, you hit baseline mortality if the vaccine is safe. In the COVID vaccines, we see mortality climb which is consistent with vaccine injuries.
Moderna had higher mortality even though it had up to 3X higher dose. This suggests more mRNA means more deaths and that’s exactly what Pfizer found in their studies which is why Pfizer is just 30 mcg per shot.
If you look at the unvaccinated line, you will see that as soon as you decide to get vaccinated, you have half the mortality of the unvaxxed! This mortality benefit happens before any shot (including a saline shot) is delivered. There are 3 reasons for this: HVE (temporal and long term) and under counting of the unvaccinated. This is an artifact and not real. If it were real, people would opt to get vaccinated every day and be immortal. And kids with 72 vaccine shots would be nearly immortal. But note how the unvaccinated die less over time, but the vaccinated die more over time (slope up). That shouldn’t happen once the groups are segmented. But this is another whole article. Also, this is precisely why this method (comparing brands) is so valuable: because the ONLY systemic difference between the cohorts who opted for vaccination is the brand they got. But there are huge differences between vaxxed and unvaxxed that almost all researchers do not appreciate and cannot adjust for. This is why studies claim the COVID vaccines save lives when they are actually increasing all-cause mortality. Think about it… if the mortality difference were real, then nearly all your friends who died would be unvaccinated. Take a look at Jay Bonnar’s story, for example.
Also, if the vaccine saved lives and reduced ACM, we’d see ACM drop on the time series charts. At no time does mortality drop after you got the shot. Read that again. The mortality of people who got the shot always goes up. So if you think the shots are “working” and reducing your mortality, why does the mortality go the “wrong way” in the time series (charts available on my github).
Triangle plot showing mortality ratio Moderna/Pfizer based on month injected and month of death
My second favorite chart is the Triangle plot of Moderna/Pfizer MRR by month of shot (y-axis) and month of death (x-axis).
The triangle diagram is similar to the earlier graph in that it shows mortality over time, but this time the x-axis is the month of death so we can fairly compute whether there was an effect for every unique combination of vax data and death date.
This shows that whenever there is sufficient data (lots of shots given), no matter when you die, the age-standardized MRR is around 1.3, give or take. That is very consistent. So this is the same gap we saw above, but now you can see that the time you got the shot or the time you died made any difference.
The consistency of the data is devastating. Moderna had 110 contests where it could have been better and it lost all 110. This is not random.
My third chart is from my “masked professional epidemiologist” friend (masked = identity withheld or he will lose his job).
This is a survival analysis for those who waited and got their first shot in 2022.
Note that this gives them less than one year to die whereas the unvaxxed have all of 2022 to die. However, survival analysis accounts for the difference. Bottom line: if everything is safe, the curves should be on top of each other.
But the Pfizer curve is to the left of the unvaccinated curve.
This is consistent with the hypothesis that Pfizer is an unsafe. And you can see how uniform the horizontal displacement is.
Pfizer hazard ratio (HR): 1.34, 95% CI: 1.25 to 1.43, P < 2x10^-16.
So it’s a mean 34% increase in all-cause mortality (and we’re 95% confident the real value is between a 25% increase and a 43% increase).
So isn’t it interesting how a vaccine which appears to reduce all-cause mortality (vs. unvaccinated) by a factor of 2 in 2021, increases all-cause mortality vs. the unvaccinated in 2022?
The most likely scenario is that in 2021 there was huge selection bias (the healthiest of the healthy) got vaccinated first. By 2022, we’re looking at the marginally healthier than normal people getting the shot and here the mortality of the vaccine overcomes the mortality difference created by the selection bias.
Key observations from the Czech Republic data
The 1 year Mortality Rate Ratio (MRR) of Moderna/Pfizer was consistently at or around 1.3. Download the time series spreadsheet with summary data here.
The observation window (52 weeks) didn’t matter. You could choose shorter or longer time periods.
The age didn’t matter
The time of vaccination didn’t matter.
The ratio was the same during times of high COVID and no COVID.
We computed the MRR from the time-series data for shots 1 to 3 for each 5 year age group over 5 time periods and we found remarkable consistency in the numbers, all hovering around 1.3X.
The 1.3 ratio exactly matched the 1.3X higher deaths per shot from the VAERS data in a study carefully done by Denis Rancourt
The MRR went the wrong way. If the vax active ingredient saved lives, Moderna should have lower mortality due to a 3X higher active ingredient.
Pfizer used a 30 mcg/dose because they found that higher doses produced unacceptably high side effects.
All the evidence we have is consistent with Moderna having a 30% increase in all-cause mortality.
All the attacks fell flat. No one has proposed an alternate hypothesis that can explain the data; not even close.
Confirmatory data (10 methods)
Hungary study: The single most important thing that most people miss is “Pfizer was preferred among older adults with chronic diseases.” Yet, Figure 3 shows 18% higher ACM for Moderna vs. Pfizer. Table 3 is from the COVID non-epidemic period. And that’s all you need to know, isn’t it? The supplement to the paper showed Pfizer patients were older, had more comorbidities, and had more serious comorbidities than Moderna during the non-epidemic period (see Table S5). Section 3.3 noted Moderna had 22% more protection from a COVID death so it wasn’t COVID protection causing the higher mortality! Figure 1 and 2 both show that the survival curves are far worse for Moderna even though it had everything going in its favor (healthier cohort, greater COVID protection) to have lower mortality. The ONLY way this can happen if the Moderna shots increase overall ACM over 30% relative to Pfizer.
:
If both vaccines were equally safe, Pfizer should have had higher ACM. The only explanation left is Moderna increased ACM.
EUDRA stats (European version of VAERS) shows Moderna is 2.4X more deadly than Pfizer on a per dose basis:
UK Yellow card system: 1.5X higher adverse events per dose for Moderna.
US VAERS:
My VAERS analysis: 1.3X higher mortality for Moderna.
Rancourt VAERS study: 1.3X higher deaths per dose for Moderna
Henjin VAERS study: See the rightmost column.
Japan VAERS analysis: “Furthermore, the ROR [95 % CIs] of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 were 15.64 [14.15–17.28] and 54.23 [48.13–61.10], respectively, for myocarditis, and 15.78 [13.52–18.42] and 27.03 [21.58–33.87], respectively, for pericarditis.” In other words, Moderna had 3.5X more adverse events myocarditis and 1.71X more events for pericarditis.
V-safe data: Ratio of serious adverse events Moderna/Pfizer normalized per shot= (1.618/1.444)*1.58= 1.8X (See my VAERS analysis for the source of the 1.58 factor; see the ICANN site for the Pfizer and Moderna numbers). Note: A 1.8X higher SAE ratio is a train wreck. How do the health authorities explain this if Moderna is safe? They don’t because nobody is asking them (and they won’t answer anyway).
Fraiman study: 1.5X higher serious adverse events for Moderna in the gold-standard trials randomized control trials
Dose of mRNA: >1.5X higher for Moderna
Pfizer FDA materials: 100 mcg of mRNA was tested, but found to be too toxic to use. Note: Moderna uses 100 mcg of mRNA. Do you think it can be safe for Moderna but not for Pfizer??
I spoke with a top US state health officer who confirmed 2X ACM mortality differences between vaccine brands. This is impossible if a vaccine was protective since COVID is, at best, 20% protective. So even a perfect vaccine can’t produce a 30% mortality difference in all age groups > 50.
In addition, in Seychelles, where Angela Wulbrecht is currently, they normally have around 700 deaths every year. Nearly everyone on the islands got the shots. Starting right after the COVID vaccines were rolled out, all-cause mortality increased by 30% overall. This is a huge increase that couldn’t be caused by statistical fluctuation (1.8e-14 chance of that). Today, nobody is getting any more shots and they aren’t even available because of lack of demand.
The health authorities are investigating the cause. They are keeping the data hidden from the public in the meantime.
Could Pfizer have been safe and it was just Moderna that was unsafe?
No, not at all. Pfizer was unsafe as well.
Take a look at Jay Bonnar’s story, for example. If Pfizer were safe, the probability of that story ever happening to anyone in the US is 5.6e-22 which is about as close to impossible as you can get. And this was not the only story like that as you’ll see from that article.
Summary
The Czech Republic official record level data shows, without any doubt, that the Moderna vaccine should be immediately pulled from the market as too unsafe to be used.
If Moderna can explain away these results as consistent with “safe” they should be allowed to do so. If they cannot, their vaccine must be pulled immediately. It’s as simple as that.
Unfortunately, we don’t have any honest regulators anywhere in the world, do we?
Unfortunately, nobody really wants to look at the Czech data because it would expose huge problems in the drug regulators like the FDA, CDC, EMA, etc, all public health officials (except Joe Ladapo), global organization like the WHO, and it would decimate confidence in the medical community, mainstream media, and lawmakers worldwide who are (with rare exceptions) ignoring this issue because it makes them look bad.
They all said nothing while millions died and even today refuse to look at this data.
AFAIK, the only trustable public health official in the whole world is Joe Ladapo, Surgeon General of Florida. The rest just go along with the narrative without asking any questions. This is deplorable.
For example, in Santa Clara County where I live, the County Supervisors trust the Public Health Department and County Executive James Williams refuses to hold the Public Health Department accountable for public safety. When you point out their own official data shows the vaccines are hurting people, all these officials refuse to take any action whatsoever and stop responding to you. They just let people die.
Please share this article widely.
I added info on the unvaxxed line for those who didn't read the original posts.
Huh? -- Your chart shows the unvaccinated dying at much greater rates than any of the vaccinated. So you'd be better off getting Moderna than staying unvaccinated, even if Moderna is harder on you than Pfizer. Now that's not what I've been seeing for years while thanking my lucky stars for staying unvaccinated. Unless that top black line with the huge "death spike" is something other than "unvaccinated"?