Update: More Data on Covid-19 “Vaccine” Products
Spotlighting another informative study
It has been a couple of months since we last dedicated an article to challenging the mainstream narrative surrounding the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 “vaccine” products. Those updates were harsh and damning. Well, get ready for another “dose” of reality.
Today we spotlight a study published in the International Journal of Preventive Medicine by authors Raheleh Karimi, Mina Norozirad, Foad Esmaeili, Marjan Mansourian, and Hamid R. Marateb entitled “COVID-19 Vaccination and Cardiovascular Events: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Multivariate Meta-Analysis of Preventive Benefits and Risks” and published March 2025. The following summarizes the patients studied:
A total of 37,774,228 individuals received the first dose of the vaccine
8,076,761 received the second dose
199,021 received the third dose
Additionally, 39,898,214 individuals either did not receive any vaccine or were given an inactive vaccine in the control group
That is nearly 86 million people included in the study. Is that comprehensive enough to draw some conclusions? Well, actually, it was only comprehensive enough to include patients who received Pfizer and AstraZeneca “vaccine” product injections; Moderna products were excluded due to issues with portions of the data included in the study. Regardless, the findings are illuminating.
The Bayesian analysis yielded an “odds ratio” value for several health conditions. The odds ratio is an indication of the likelihood that an event (in this case, injections of the “vaccine” products) will result in a particular outcome. A summary of the key findings are as follows:
Two vaccine doses increased the risk of coronary artery disease by 244%; one dose increased the risk by 70%
Two vaccine doses doses increased the risk of myocardial infarction by 286%; a single dose was likely to increase that risk by as much as 87%, but that increase varies depending on the product
One dose of any of the vaccines increased the risk of stroke by 240%
One dose of any of the vaccines increased the risk of arrhythmia by 199%
These are huge and alarming risk increases. If you have a family history of heart problems, this should be particularly concerning.
We all have a responsibility to learn from the past. Learning from the COVID-19 pandemic hysteria is no different. Many believed the “vaccine” products were the answer. Many were skeptical. These differences were fracturing to society. Now it is time to heal the parts of us that were not damaged by these experimental injections. Now is the time to acknowledge that these injections presented far more danger than we were initially told.
In evaluating the spectrum of positions on the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 “vaccine” products in the context of which members of society should take the vaccine, there are the obvious extremes of “everybody” and “nobody” — neither of which seem very meet-me-in-the-middle. Previously, the most meet-me-in-the-middle position seemed to be that associated with The Great Barrington Declaration, which we paraphrase as: interventions should be limited to the most vulnerable (those with co-morbidities, including advanced age and pre-existing health conditions). In light of the increased risks associated with the “vaccine” products, should we doubt whether even the most vulnerable should have been taking these experimental medications?
The evidence against the “vaccine” products continues to mount. The SCIENCE that is challenging the narrative is growing. The authorities who pushed (and shoved) the “vaccine” products on the public referred to COVID-19 “vaccine” skeptics as “science deniers.” Who was really denying science during the pandemic? At the very least, it seems that the skeptics did not have a monopoly on science denial.
Where do you stand as more data emerges about the dangers of the “vaccine” products and the efficacy of alternative medications that were cheap and widely available during the pandemic but that were vilified in the mainstream narrative at the time? Do you believe that the “vaccine” products were the only rational response to the pandemic? Would you have liked to have seen more focus placed on cheap, widely available, and (now proven) highly effective alternatives, such as ivermectin? Or do still trust the narrative that everyone should have been “vaccinated” and still should be getting boosters?
The cover-your-backside disclaimer at the heart of evaluations of “vaccine” product safety is: Patients should weigh the protective benefits and individual risk factors in consultation with their healthcare providers to make informed decisions. Do you have the right to be informed about both benefits and risks associated with an experimental medication? Even now, it is difficult for the average citizen to be truly informed since the latest information on “vaccine” product risks is not being acknowledged and reported by mainstream news sources.
In an age of over-medication, there is wisdom in skepticism. “Modern medicine” does not have all of the answers. Being closed off to new information based on politics seems unwise. It is our hope that an honest dialogue can be achieved so that we can better navigate scary health-related scenarios, like the COVID-19 pandemic, in the future. Can we have honest dialogue if we continue to deny the science?