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.

Figure 1: Ratio of Moderna group's mortality rate to Pfizer's for those injected with first dose in March-December 2021 by age
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.

Figure 2: Ratio of Moderna group's mortality rate to Pfizer's for those injected with first dose during low Covid death period July-October 2021 by age
For completeness, here is the same graph for January-June when Covid rates were high - the pattern is similar.

Figure 3: Ratio of Moderna group's mortality rate to Pfizer's for those injected with first dose during high Covid death period January-June 2021 by age
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.