Study of Nearly 100 Million COVID-19 Vaccine Recipients Reveals a Host of Adverse Events

Cases of a blood clot condition called CVST were found to be three times higher than expected among the vaccinated.

By Naveen Athrappully, EPOCH TIMES   2/19/2024
A health care worker fills a syringe with Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine in a file image. (Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images)

A multinational study of over 99 million vaccinated people has identified higher incidences of neurological, cardiovascular, and blood disorder complications than what the researchers expected.

The peer-reviewed observational cohort study, published in the Vaccine journal on Feb. 12, aimed to evaluate the risk of 13 adverse events of special interest (AESI) following COVID-19 vaccination. The AESIs spanned three categories—neurological, hematologic (blood), and cardiovascular.

It reviewed data collected from more than 99 million vaccinated people from eight nations—Argentina, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, New Zealand, and Scotland—looking at risks up to 42 days after getting the shots.

The study looked at three vaccines—Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines as well as AstraZeneca’s viral vector jab.

Researchers found higher than expected cases that they deemed met the threshold to be potential safety signals for multiple AESIs, including for Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), myocarditis, and pericarditis. A safety signal refers to information that could suggest a potential risk or harm that may be associated with a medical product.

  • GBS is a disorder in which a body’s immune system attacks the nerves, and can eventually paralyze the whole body. Most people with the condition require hospitalization. A “statistically significant increase” in GBS cases was observed after the first AstraZeneca shot. The researchers had expected 76 GBS events in the observational cohort study but ended up identifying 190.
  • Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) is a condition that typically occurs after a bacterial or viral infection. It causes inflammation of the central nervous system. Two cases were expected. However, the study identified seven events after the first Moderna jab.
  • Bell’s palsy is a weakness or paralysis of facial muscles. Higher than expected Bell’s palsy cases were identified after the first dose of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
  • CVST is a condition in which blood clots form in the brain, blocking the blood from draining out. This can end up causing a hemorrhage. While 21 events were expected, researchers identified over three times the number of cases at 69 following the first dose of AstraZeneca vaccine. CVST cases were also higher than expected after the first and second Pfizer shots.
  • Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle. Higher than expected cases of myocarditis that met the threshold for “prioritized safety signals” for the condition were “consistently identified following a first, second, and third dose of mRNA vaccines,” both Pfizer and Moderna, according to the study.
  • Pericarditis is an inflammation of the outer lining of the heart. The number of pericarditis cases exceeded expectations following “all doses of all the three vaccines,” researchers wrote.

Commentary From Researchers

The higher risk of GBS from vector-based vaccines like AstraZeneca has been identified in other studies as well, the researchers pointed out. Interestingly, studies on mRNA vaccines “have not observed increases of GBS,” they noted.

The researchers said that multiple other studies have also identified “increased incidence of CVST after vaccination,” which has led to the withdrawal of AstraZeneca vaccine from COVID-19 vaccine programs in several nations. Some countries have imposed age-based restrictions for the shot, they added.

RELATED STORIES

COVID Vaccine mRNA Can ‘Spread Systemically’ to Placenta and Infants of Women Vaccinated During Pregnancy

2/19/2024
COVID Vaccine mRNA Can ‘Spread Systemically’ to Placenta and Infants of Women Vaccinated During Pregnancy
One-Third of Doctors, Half of Nurses in Canada Were Reluctant to Take COVID Vaccines: Government Survey
2/19/2024
One-Third of Doctors, Half of Nurses in Canada Were Reluctant to Take COVID Vaccines: Government Survey
Regarding myocarditis and pericarditis, researchers noted that the World Health Organization (WHO) has issued guidance on the conditions. A 2021 guidance from the WHO stated at the time that more countries were “reporting myocarditis and pericarditis in individuals who received COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.”

The Feb. 12 study noted that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is monitoring and reviewing data on myocarditis and pericarditis among COVID-19 vaccinated individuals.

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Public Health Ontario, ICES which is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health, as well as a Clinician-Scientist Award from the University of Toronto Department of Family and Community Medicine. Researchers declared several potential competing interests.

The Epoch Times reached out to Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca for comment regarding the study.

Recent Studies Imply Vaccine Dangers

Numerous studies have shown that COVID-19 vaccines come with a risk of multiple medical complications. A recent Feb. 15 study conducted in Nordic nations concluded that booster vaccination against COVID-19 is linked to a higher risk of heart inflammation among adolescents.

The study noted that the association of myocarditis with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines has appeared “strongest in male adolescents and younger males and after the second dose.”

A separate Jan. 27 study points out that a “considerable body of evidence” suggests a correlation and even a causation between mRNA boosters and adverse effects on the immune system.

“Given the decreased severity of the virus … there are legitimate concerns about the frequent administration of boosters in immunocompromised patients, raising questions about whether this practice may be causing more harm than benefit,” it said.

A study accepted into the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology on Jan. 24 (pdf) investigated placenta samples from two pregnant women who had received Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Researchers concluded that “vaccine mRNA is not localized to the injection site and can spread systemically to the placenta and umbilical cord blood.”
Commenting on the study, cardiologist Peter McCullough said that the observations “have confirmed one of our worst fears, that is, poorly advised vaccination during pregnancy allows circulating mRNA and local production of Spike protein in the placenta potentially threatening the gestation and delivery.”

“But worse, mRNA is passed on to the baby with unknown effects on organogenesis, tissue damage, blood clotting, and a host of other adverse processes within the newborn’s body.”

A peer-reviewed article from last month which analyzed reports from the initial phase 3 trials of Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines concluded that the shots killed more people than they saved.

Based on “conservative assumptions,“ the estimated harms of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines ”greatly outweigh the rewards,“ the article stated, noting that ”for every life saved, there were nearly 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections.”

Lately, evidence has been mounting suggesting the “shedding” of COVID-19 vaccine proteins. The controversial subject was largely discounted by scientists but now some doctors say that authorities are well aware of the phenomenon.
February 21, 2024 | 13 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

13 Comments / 13 Comments

  1. @Felix

    Ted told me he believes Global Warming is fact

    I cannot remember saying so or thinking so.
    The issue is whether the alleged increase in temperature is man-made. I think not.
    The second issue is whether the policy of reducing carbon emissions can make a difference, Again, I think not.
    The third issue is whether the economic cost of reducing carbon emissions is worth it? Again, I think not.

  2. @stevenl
    You are quite correct in raising the alarm over the French law proscribing wrong-think. I would argue that this abomination posing as law will have an effect upon the people and the govt, both, as well as the trust, or lack thereof, which lies between the two groups – one able to define legitimate discussion and the other limited by such definitions as are whimsically chosen by such overreaching authoritarians as are now isolating themselves from a fair accounting of the people. I suspect that this law will not have the intended effect for which it was created, but will only serve to distance the people from their govt to an even greater extent than that to which they had already been distanced. A lack of accountability by the overlords who proscribe open debafte in a free society can only act to highlight both the need for and absence of such accountability as is needed for free societies to actually be called free. Accordingly, I believe this move towards greater authoritarianism in the French Republic will only result in the yellow vests gaining even greater support for their protests against their govt in the coming weeks and months.

  3. @Felix

    That’s a good point clearly and succinctly put, not your usual style but useful nevertheless.

    Actually, my understanding of what you asked was who wrote the study but I see that upon reading you second post a second time that you were asking about the author of the article above. In any event, it was not my intent to be limited in my response, but I can see that this is how you interpreted my comment.

    In any event, I am unfamiliar with the above author, or the author of the study in question for that matter, which is why I did not provide you a more expansive response than I did. Also, I did not actually post the above article, though I believe the content and perspectives share are both relevant and supportable to the extent that I described in my original response to you. Nonetheless, I hardly believe it is relevant what the above author believes on any other topic as it relates to her review of the studies discussed in this article.

    Science, true science, requires a discussion of facts and figures, of data and findings, and the arguments waged on such details as these, and not the persons waging those arguments, and certainly not their views on unrelated subjects such as the climate hoax. Scientific arguments, regardless of those advocating for or against the arguments waged, must be able to withstand the scrutiny of the skepticism of the scientific community. In fact, the loss of critical thinking and skeptical inquiry is what has allowed the toxic shots to be both authorized and not withdrawn from the market, even after such concerning reports as the above article brings to light. As I noted below, the precautionary principle, ie the principle which prioritizes personal safety over progressive exploration, has been completely set aside, and this has had a greater implications upon the responsibility of those who sit in power over the people today, as it has also affected people who have been left injured without support.

    Hopefully, we will find a way to right the ship, treat those who have been harmed because of such failings as have taken place, and pursue a just accounting for those who are quite culpable in having ignored such matters as having an unsafe or ineffective product on the market without any concerning response those by those who are responsible for these matters, at all levels of the power structure.

  4. Peloni

    I take it then that you not Ted Belman posted this article by Naveen Athrappully. Ted told me he believes Global Warming is fact

    She is also I do believe a Denier of the science of global warming of our earth at the hand of various forms of capitalism.

    So it is her article.

    Therefore we have a Denier of global warming of our earth also writing as a Denier of the efficacy of vaccines to prevent pandemic.

    I find all of those facts relevant which facts you overlooked.

  5. Any Frenchy criticizing “mRNA” use may end up with a big fine and jail time!
    A law was just passed in France to that effect.
    Preempting legal action for Crimes Against Humanity perpetrated by Farma and Western Gov against their own people!

  6. Peloni

    That’s a good point clearly and succinctly put, not your usual style but useful nevertheless.

    So the last guy has overall responsibility

    Bit by bit ill get to the bottom of this article

    Thanks for that morsel anyways.

  7. @Felix
    The authors are listed under the title on the link I provided. It is customary that the last author is the lead author and the first author does most of the work on the project, with significant or minor contributions roles being played by the other authors. Just FYI. Hope this answers your question.

  8. As one who has been personally affected by this $cam and the damaged done to our son is not over yet, I have come to understand something about human nature, which I suspect effects over 90% of the population.

    When one is faced with an opinion of an authority figure. Regardless of their education, intelligence and knowledge base of that said one. Human nature tells us to turn our brains off and follow the advice of the authority figure. What authority figure? It does not seem to matter, Government, medical, religious or any other. It takes time and effort to evaluate and do the research to determine what we will allow to be foster, perpetrated on us and subject ourselves to. It’s simply easier to go along then to question and look for another path forward.

    But here is the problem. Once we have been walked down a certain pathway by the authority figure, they claim we have been given and they have received “informed consent” and guess what? We have to live with the choices we make. Sometimes choices they make, and we just get dragged along.

    Informed consent=bullshit! When the last time you ever spend hours discussing your upcoming surgery with your doctor or spent hours researching a procedure before taking a covid shot? NOT!
    We humans are being walked down a path littered with gold/silver, money$$$ and somebody else is picking up the liter and not us, because we gave up the right to use our God given brain. An old man once told me. “Wilson said, ‘If you’re not going to use the brain God gave you, he should have just given you two A$$holes’. “

  9. Peloni

    Thanks for answering. I asked how concretely the examination of 100 million was carried out. And by whom. Who exactly are these who wrote this article?

  10. @Felix
    It is interesting that you never raised any doubts related to the studies supporting the toxic shots based on the number of people, and many of those were simply retrospective studies, which can not be used to demonstrate safety, but can only identify large . In any event, here is the abstract for the protocol used.

    Using a common protocol, this observational cohort study compared observed with expected rates of 13 selected AESI across neurological, haematological, and cardiac outcomes. Expected rates were obtained by participating sites using pre-COVID-19 vaccination healthcare data stratified by age and sex. Observed rates were reported from the same healthcare datasets since COVID-19 vaccination program rollout. AESI occurring up to 42 days following vaccination with mRNA (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273) and adenovirus-vector (ChAdOx1) vaccines were included in the primary analysis. Risks were assessed using observed versus expected (OE) ratios with 95 % confidence intervals. Prioritised potential safety signals were those with lower bound of the 95 % confidence interval (LBCI) greater than 1.5.

    The link for the study is provided in the article above, but here it is for your convenience to read:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X24001270?via%3Dihub

    This is a retrospective study covering multiple countries, and multiple hospitals within each country. As I noted above, retrospective studies can not demonstrate safety, because they lack the sensitivity to detect anything but large glaring safety issues. Hence, they are useful to detect issues of concern which require more specific inquiries. Despite this fact, retrospective studies were employed to validate the safety of the toxic shots, despite its lack of sensitivity to demonstrate such proof of safety. Now that the safety issues are large enough to present themselves in the data, we will no doubt soon hear how insensitive and irrelevant retrospective studies are, when the truth is that it is only a positive test detecting safety issues.

    Of note, this is one study, and as I have always stated, one study is just one study, but this is easily not the only study demonstrating the toxicities associated with these shots, and the testimony regarding the presence of (toxic) DNA fragments in the shots should make all of this quite irrelevant. There is too much money and fraud supporting the shots, and the medical communities and bureaucrats are too well captured by Pharma to do what is needed, but what is needed is to have been more cautious and less cavalier when employing a universal world wide vaccination protocol using a poorly tested shot to treat a disease which was always specifically targeting a small subset of society.

    In any event, your skepticism, though specific to studies which challenge these shots, is never a poor perspective to adopt, but I would suggest this in general rather than specifically towards one outcome. The precautionary principle, if it had not been utterly ignored over the past years, would have triggered a demand for greater inquiry into these shots long ago, and even now, it will doubtlessly continue to be ignored for the reasons I suggested above.

  11. How does this study work because it refers to 100 million people (a lot) but how do you go about such a study?

    I am sceptical of it.