COVID VAX REGRET: Horrific injuries, lack of support, and inexcusable “black hole” for injury claims against pharma and US government

Authors: S.D. Wells 09/06/2022 / Pandemic News

Impaired immunity is about the worst “side effect” from COVID vaccines that the majority of Americans would want to avoid, not run towards, seeing as how so many people are already suffering from obesity, cancer, heart disease, diabetes and dementia. Fear of COVID outweighed the fear of this because people have been brainwashed by their televisions, their newspapers and those pharma-shilling websites, so they run out and get jabbed up with Fauci Flu shots to try to save themselves from sure destruction, when that ironically is what they are injected with.

The already-immune-compromised “sheeple” are getting “shot” up with millions of toxic prions (that keep multiplying as mRNA) that drive chronic inflammation, while devastating the immune system, which in turn exacerbates their current health “conditions,” (preventable diseases and disorders), and sometimes to the point of “unexplainable” sudden death.

Is it too late for the injected sheeple? Can they sue? Will the next “flu” kill them all off, or will it be unexplainable, sudden-inflicted myocarditis? Are all the microscopic blood clots the REASON for the heart irregularities, cancer reemergence and spontaneous abortions? This deserves careful consideration. Time to take an inside look.

While fighting cancer with chemicals that spread cancer, Dan Bongino went and did the unthinkable – he got “vaccinated” with millions of prions that cause all of the body system issues that literally fuel cancer development, including inflammation, immune system dysfunction, pollution of the cleansing organs and massive stress. That’s why health advocates avoid the Fauci Flu shots like the plague, and that’s why they’re nicknamed “clot shots” and “death stabs.”

Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service agent, just blew the whistle on the establishment, the vaccine industrial complex, and he says he fell for the ploy because he was “scared.” Well, fear is big business in America, and Pharma is running the whole gamut, play by play.

As Tucker Carlson revealed on Fox News (he’s the only real truth seeker left at the network), the COVID vaccine’s suppression of the immune system has a “wide range of consequences, not the least of which include the reactivation of latent viral infections and the reduced ability to effectively combat future infections.”

Let that sink in for a minute … “the reduced ability to effectively combat future infections.” Isn’t that cancer? That’s the last thing any person fighting cancer should ever do to their body, but it’s the first thing everyone jumped to do that lost the virus mania “fear” battle with their (fake news) television and the highly corrupt CDC – Centers for Disease Continuance.

There’s a huge black hole for the COVID-vaccine-injured sheeple who hope to win lawsuits trying to sue anyone who pushed the vaccines on them

Law firms are litigating more vaccine-related injury claims than ever before in the history of vaccines, but that doesn’t mean they’re winning the cases or even gaining settlements for their clients. Big Pharma and crooked Congress have created a massive wall, a legal barrier, to protect their own interests and agenda in depopulation and population control. How? They can’t be sued for injury, wrong-doing, conspiring to kill – anything. The entire industry (the vaccine industrial complex) is immune from the Constitution.

Law firms are covered up trying to handle all the vaccine-related injury cases that involve people suddenly suffering from blood clots and cardiac inflammation. In fact, these lawyers are so covered up with filings, while gaining little traction as far as winning cases or money, that they’re starting to turn people away, saying “you have the right to file” but that you also “have the right to lose.”

Bookmark Vaccines.news to your favorite independent websites for updates on experimental “vaccines” that cause blood clots, myocarditis, chronic inflammation and post-vaccine-regret.

Risk of Myocarditis After Sequential Doses of COVID-19 Vaccine and SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Age and Sex

Authors: Martina Patone, PhD; Xue W. Mei, PhD; Lahiru Handunnetthi, PhD; Sharon Dixon, MD; Francesco Zaccardi, PhD; Manu Shankar-Hari, PhD; Peter Watkinson, MD; Kamlesh Khunti, PhD; Anthony Harnden, PhD; Carol A.C. Coupland, PhD; Keith M. Channon, MD; Nicholas L. Mills, PhD; Aziz Sheikh, MD; Julia Hippisley-Cox, MD August 28, 2022 ORIGINAL RESEARCHARTICLECirculation. 2022;146:00–00. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 xxx xxx, 20223Patone et al

BACKGROUND: Myocarditis is more common after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination, but the risks in younger people and after sequential vaccine doses are less certain.

METHODS:

A self-controlled case series study of people ages 13 years or older vaccinated for COVID-19 in England between December 1, 2020, and December 15, 2021, evaluated the association between vaccination and myocarditis, stratified by age and sex. The incidence rate ratio and excess number of hospital admissions or deaths from myocarditis per million people were estimated for the 1 to 28 days after sequential doses of adenovirus (ChAdOx1) or mRNA-based (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273) vaccines, or after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.RESULTS: In 42842345 people receiving at least 1 dose of vaccine, 21242629 received 3 doses, and 5934153 had SARS-CoV-2 infection before or after vaccination. Myocarditis occurred in 2861 (0.007%) people, with 617 events 1 to 28 days after vaccination. Risk of myocarditis was increased in the 1 to 28 days after a first dose of ChAdOx1 (incidence rate ratio, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.09–1.62]) and a first, second, and booster dose of BNT162b2 (1.52 [95% CI, 1.24–1.85]; 1.57 [95% CI, 1.28–1.92], and 1.72 [95% CI, 1.33–2.22], respectively) but was lower than the risks after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test before or after vaccination (11.14 [95% CI, 8.64–14.36] and 5.97 [95% CI, 4.54–7.87], respectively). The risk of myocarditis was higher 1 to 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273 (11.76 [95% CI, 7.25–19.08]) and persisted after a booster dose (2.64 [95% CI, 1.25–5.58]). Associations were stronger in men younger than 40 years for all vaccines. In men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after a second dose of mRNA-1273 than after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (97 [95% CI, 91–99] versus 16 [95% CI, 12–18]). In women younger than 40 years, the number of excess events per million was similar after a second dose of mRNA-1273 and a positive test (7 [95% CI, 1–9] versus 8 [95% CI, 6–8]).CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the risk of myocarditis is greater after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination and remains modest after sequential doses including a booster dose of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. However, the risk of myocarditis after vaccination is higher in younger men, particularly after a second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine.

We recently reported an association between the first and second dose of COVID-19 vaccination and myocarditis, which generated considerable scientific, policy, and public interest.1 It added to evidence emerging from multiple countries that has linked exposure to BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine with acute myocarditis.2–8In the largest and most comprehensive analysis to date, we reported an increased risk of hospital admission or death from myocarditis after both adenoviral (ChAdOx1) vaccines and mRNA (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273) vac-cines. It is important that we also demonstrated across the entire vaccinated population in England that the risk of myocarditis after vaccination was small compared with the risk after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.1However, myocarditis is more common in younger people younger than the age of 40 years and in men in particular.9,10 Additional analyses stratified by age and sex are important because vaccine campaigns are rap-idly being extended to include children and young adults. Furthermore, given the consistent observation that the risk of myocarditis is higher after the second dose of vac-cine compared with the first dose,1,11 there is an urgent need to evaluate the risk associated with a booster dose because booster programs are accelerated internation-ally to combat the omicron variant.12Because new data were available, we have extended our analysis to include people ages 13 years or older and those receiving a booster dose to further evaluate the association between COVID-19 vaccination or infection and risk of myocarditis, stratified by age and sex.

METHODS

Transparency and Openness Promotion This analysis makes use of multiple routinely collected health care data sources that were linked, deidentified, and held in a trusted research environment that was accessible to approved individuals who had undertaken the necessary governance training. Because of the sensitive nature of the data collected for this study, requests to access the dataset from qualified researchers trained in human subject confidentiality proto-cols may be sent to National Health Service Digital and the United Kingdom Health Security Agency. Simulated data and the analysis code are available publicly at https://github.com/qresearchcode/COVID-19-vaccine-safety. National Health Service Research Ethics Committee approval was obtained from the East Midlands–Derby Research Ethics Committee (Reference 18/EM/0400]. Anonymized data are analyzed, so there is no requirement for written informed consent. Data Sources We used the National Immunisation Database of COVID-19 vaccination to identify vaccine exposure. This includes vaccine type, date, and doses for all people vaccinated in England. We linked National Immunisation Database vaccination data, at the individual level, to national data for mortality (Office for National Statistics), hospital admissions (Hospital Episode Statistics and Secondary User’s service data), and SARS-CoV-2 infection data (Second Generation Surveillance System).Study Design and Oversight We undertook a self-controlled case series design, originally developed to examine vaccine safety.12 The analyses are conditional on each case, so any fixed characteristics during the study period, such as sex, ethnicity, or chronic conditions, are inherently controlled for. Age was considered as a fixed variable because the study period was short. Any time-varying factors, such as seasonal variation, need to be adjusted for in the analy-ses. Hospital admissions were likely to be influenced by the pressure on the health systems because of COVID-19, which was not uniform during the pandemic study period. To allow for these underlying seasonal effects, we split the study observation period into weeks and adjusted for week as a factor vari-able in the statistical models.Study Period and Population We included all people ages 13 years or older who had received at least 1 dose of ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca), BNT162b2 (Pfizer), and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine and were admit-ted to hospital or died from myocarditis between December 1, 2020, and December 15, 2021.OutcomeThe primary outcome of interest was the first hospital admis-sion caused by the myocarditis, or death recorded on the death Clinical PerspectiveWhat Is New?•We performed an evaluation of the risk of myocar-ditis after COVID-19 vaccine in >42 million vacci-nated people 13 years or older, including 21 million people receiving a booster dose, stratified by age and sex.•We extend our previous findings demonstrating that the risk of hospitalization or death from myo-carditis after SARS-CoV-2 infection is substantially higher than the risk associated with a first dose of ChAdOx1, and a first, second, or booster dose of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine.

•Associations were stronger in younger men <40 years for all vaccines and after a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine, where the risk of myocarditis was higher after vaccination than SARS-CoV-2 infection. What Are the Clinical Implications?•Our findings will inform recommendations on the type of vaccine offered to younger people and will help to shape public health policy on booster pro-grams enabling an informed discussion of the risk of vaccine associated myocarditis when considering the net benefit of vaccination.

Myocarditis After COVID-19 Vaccine and Infection certificate with the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code (Table S1) related to myocarditis within the study period (December 1, 2020, to December 15, 2022). We used the earliest date of hospitalization or date of death as the event date.ExposuresThe exposure variables were a first, second, or booster dose of the ChAdOx1, BNT162b2, or mRNA-1273 vaccines, and SARS-CoV-2 infection, defined as the first SARS-CoV-2–positive test in the study period. All exposures were included in the same model. We defined the exposure risk intervals as the following prespecified time periods: 0, 1 to 7, 8 to 14, 15 to 21, and 22 to 28 days after each exposure date, under the assumption that the adverse events under consideration are unlikely to be related to exposure later than 28 days after expo-sure. A pre-risk interval of 1 to 28 days before each exposure date was included to account for potential bias that might arise if the occurrence of the outcome temporarily influenced the likelihood of exposure. The baseline period for the vaccination exposures was the remaining time from December 1, 2020, until 29 days before the first dose date and from 29 days after the first or second dose until 29 days before the second or booster dose (if applicable), and from 29 days after the booster dose until December 15, 2021, or the censored date if earlier. We assumed that the risks might be different after each vac-cine dose, and hence we allowed for a dose effect, by defining a separate risk interval after each dose: 0, 1 to 7, 8 to 14, 15 to 21, or 22 to 28 days after the first, second, or booster dose. To avoid overlapping risk periods, we assumed that later expo-sures take precedence over earlier ones, except for the 1- to 28-day pre-risk period for the second or booster dose. A posi-tive SARS-CoV-2 test was considered as a separate exposure in the models, which allowed overlapping risk windows with vaccination exposure.Statistical AnalysisWe described the characteristics of the whole study population by vaccine dose and type, and in those with myocarditis strati-fied by age and sex.In vaccinated people with myocarditis, the self-controlled case series models were fitted using a conditional Poisson regression model with an offset for the length of the expo-sure risk period. Incidence rate ratios (IRR), the relative rate of hospital admissions or deaths caused by myocarditis in expo-sure risk periods relative to baseline periods, and their 95% CIs were estimated by the self-controlled case series model adjusted for calendar time. We investigated if associations between vaccine exposure and the myocarditis outcome were sex- or age-dependent by performing subgroup analyses strati-fied by sex and age (men age <40 years, men age≥ 40 years, women age <40 years, and women age ≥40 years). We also conducted analyses stratified by vaccination history, restricted to those who had the same type of vaccine in the first and sec-ond dose and by lag in days between the first and second dose (≤65, 66 to 79, and ≥80 days).We conducted sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of results to assumptions, such as that the occurrence of an outcome event did not influence the probability of subsequent exposures by (1) excluding those who died from the outcome and (2) restricting analysis to the period after the first dose and (3) after the second dose, without censoring at death; and to assess potential reporting delays in the data by (4) restricting the study to the period up to December 1, 2021.We also performed sensitivity analyses (5) removing patients who had outcomes in the 28 days after a first dose, but before a second dose, and (6) removing patients who had outcomes in the 28 days after a second dose, but before a booster dose, because they are less likely to have a second dose if they experienced an adverse event after the first. Last, we conducted a sensitivity analysis (7) restricted to those with-out a positive SARS-CoV-2 test during the observation period.We used Stata (version 17) for these analyses.

RESULTS

Between December 1, 2020, and December 15, 2021, there were 42 842 345 people vaccinated with at least 1 dose of ChAdOx1 (n=20 650 685), BNT162b2 (n=20 979 704), or mRNA-1273 (n=1 211 956) (Table 1). Of these, 39 118 282 received a sec-ond dose of ChAdOx1 (n=20 080 976), BNT162b2 (n=17 950 086), or mRNA-1273 (n=1 087 220), and 21 242 629 people received a third vaccine dose: ChAdOx1 (n=53 606), BNT162b2 (n=17 517 692), and mRNA-1273 (n=3 671 331).Among people receiving at least 1 vaccine dose, 5 934 153 (13.9%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, including 2 958 026 (49.8%) before their first vac-cination.Of the 42 842 345 people in the study population, 2861 (0.007%) were hospitalized or died from myocar-ditis during the study period; 345 (<0.001%) patients died within 28 days from a hospital admission with myo-carditis or with myocarditis as cause of death recorded in the death certificate. A total of 617 (0.001%) of these events occurred 1 to 28 days after any dose of vaccine (Table 2). Of the 524 patients admitted to the hospital with myocarditis in the 1 to 28 days after any first or sec-ond vaccine dose, 151 (28.8%) had received a booster dose: 34.4% (79/230) of those who had ChAdOx1 in the first or second dose and 29.7% (72/243) of those who had BNT162b2 in the first or second dose (Table 2). Of the 5 934 153 patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection, 195 (0.003%) were hospitalized or died with myocarditis in the 1 to 28 days after the positive test; 114 (58.5%) of these events occurred before vaccination (Table S2).Vaccine-Associated MyocarditisIn the study period, we observed 140 and 90 patients who were admitted to the hospital or died of myocardi-tis after a first and second dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine, respectively. Of these, 40 (28.6%) and 11 (12.2%)‚ re-spectively, died with myocarditis or within 28 days from hospital admission. Similarly, there were 124, 119, and 85 patients who were admitted to the hospital or died

After COVID-19 Vaccine and Infection Table 1.Baseline Demographic Characteristics of People Receiving ChAdOx1, BNT162b2, or mRNA-1273 Vaccines or Testing Positive for SARS-CoV-2 Virus (in Those Vaccinated) in England Between December 1, 2020, and December 15, 2021 ChAdOx1BNT162b2mRNA-1273ChAdOx1BNT162b2mRNA-1273ChAdOx1BNT162b2mRNA-1273SARS- CoV-2 positive*One dose (n=42 842 345)Two doses (n=39 118 282)Booster doses (n=21 242 629)(n= 5 934 153)% (n)% (n) % (n)% (n)% (n)% (n)% (n)% (n)% (n)% (n)Total no. of people20 650 68520 979 7041 211 95620 080 97617 950 0861 087 22053 60617 517 6923 671 3315 934 153SexWomen49.5(10 215 079)49.1(10 295 561)38.7(469 114)49.5(9 945 533)50.1(9 000 748)39.5(429 705)61.2(32 792)54.2(9 489 364)48.4(1 778 317)52.3(3 103 168)Men43.3(8 933 572)40.4(8 476 032)42.0(508 416)43.3(8 697 560)39.8(7 148 539)42.1(457 629)34.8(18 674)41.4(7 244 858)44.2(1 623 230)40.5(2 405 336)Not recorded7. 3(1 502 034)10.5(2 208 110)19.3(234 426)7. 2(1 437 882)10.0(1 800 799)18.4(199 886)4.0(2140)4.5(783 471)7. 3(269 784)7. 2(425 649)Age, yMean age (SD)54.9 (14.8)43.0 (22.4)32.3 (9.7)55.0 (14.7)46.5 (21.7)32.7 (9.8)63.1 (17.0)61.8 (15.9)53.7 (12.4)41.4 (18.0)13–17 <0.1(10 214)10.6(2 219 006)0.1(838)<0.1(9105)2.6(468 569)0.1 (623)0.1 (31)0.1(23 826)0.1(2961)8.3(493 728)18–29 5.2(1 081 177)24.4(5 127 151)43.1(521 916)5.1(1 022 847)24.9(4 472 159)41.3(449 436)3.7(1964)3.6(624 465)4.0(146 688)21.6(1 279 933)30–39 7. 9(1 634 841)21.5(4 517 781)35.6(431 515)7. 8(1 556 785)23.1(4 146 117)36.1(392 581)5.8(3102)6.1(1 067 916)8.6(315 936)18.3(1 084 406)40–49 22.1(4 564 393)8.5(1 784 664)18.4(222 849)22.0(4 414 864)9.3(1 665 983)19.5(212 187)11.5 (6171)11.1(1 949 092)19.2(706 004)19.4(1 152 196)50–59 2 7. 5(5 673 878)8.0(1 684 013)1.8(22 320)2 7. 6(5 549 187)9.1(1 636 430)1.9(20 463)19.9(10 644)20.8(3 635 337)35.3(1 295 168)16.7(989 499)60–69 19.8(4 083 887)8.5(1 777 370)0.7(8330)20.0(4 013 588)9.8(1 753 552)0.7(8145)19.3(10 371)22.5(3 938 515)24.8(910 586)8.5(505 389)70–79 13.4(2 763 041)9.4(1 979 901)0.3(3241)13.5(2 717 638)10.9(1 959 318)0.3(2789)22.6(12 090)23.1(4 049 042)6.5(237 287)4.2(248 415)80–89 3.1(630 457)7. 7(1 621 129)0.1(842)3.0(604 788)8.9(1 591 216)0.1(837)12.5 (6710)10.8(1 888 973)1.3(47 228)2.2(132 459)90+ 1.0(208 753)1.3(268 563)<0.1(103)1.0(192 162)1.4(256 698)<0.1(158)4.7(2523)1.9(340 498)0.3(9473)0.8(48 117)Not recorded<0.1 (44)<0.1 (125)<0.1 (2)<0.1 (11)<0.1 (44)<0.0 (1)0<0.1 (29)0<0.1 (11)Women age groups, y <40 14.8(1 510 119)51.7(5 325 910)7 7. 9(365 443)14.4(1 437 517)45.9(4 131 123)76.4(328 311)9.2(3020)10.9(1 032 366)14.2(252 054)4 7. 6(1 477 776)≥40 85.2(8 704 960)48.3(4 969 651)22.1(103 671)85.5(8 508 009)54.1(4 869 604)23.6(101 394)90.8(29 772)89.1(8 456 981)85.8(1 526 263)52.4(1 625 385) Not recorded<0.1 (16)<0.1 (59)0<0.1 (7)<0.1 (21)0000<0.1 (7)Men age groups, y<40 11.2(998 025)56.2(4 762 038)78.2(397 521)10.9(949 865)49.4(3 533 806)76.7(35 074)8.8(1650)7. 5(541 432)10.5(171 132)46.2(1 110 723)≥40 88.8(7 935 546)43.8(3 712 994)21.8(110 895)89.1(7 747 692)50.8(3 614 721)23.3(106 834)91.2(17 024)92.5(6 703 416)89.5(1 452 098)53.8(1 294 609) Not recorded<0.1 (21)<0.1 (42)<0.1 (2)<0.1 (3)<0.1 (12)<0.1 (1)000<0.1 (4)EthnicityWhite6 7. 9(14 012 353)63.6(13 344 722)53.0(642 168)68.0(13 656 716)64.2(11 530 182)54.0(587 123)74.3(39 827)73.6(12 891 303)69.6(2 553 453)66.9(3 971 366)Indian2.0(406 066)2.2(469 302)1.1(13 385)2.0(395 171)2.2(394 274)1.1(11 902)2.1(1141)2.0(354 433)1.4(51 193)2.6(153 403)Pakistani1.2(253 523)1.6(335 100)1.0(12 213)1.2(239 511)1.4(249 446)0.9(9732)0.9(477)0.6(109 038)0.5(19 186)2.0(118 522)Bangladeshi0.5 (96 392)0.5 (111 314)0.5 (5966)0.5 (92 835)0.5 (83 524)0.5 (4902)0.4 (217)0.2 (43 360)0.3 (10 775)0.7 (40 093)Other Asian0.9 (177 629)1.1 (238 245)1.0 (11 859)0.9 (171 863)1.1 (191 996)1.0 (10 365)0.8 (436)0.7 (128 434)0.6 (23 284)1.1 (67 392)Caribbean0.6 (117 507)0.5 (96 994)0.4 (4265)0.6 (110 470)0.4 (80 146)0.3 (3296)1.3 (706)0.4 (77 095)0.3 (11 820)0.5 (28 327)(Continued)ORIGINAL RESEARCHARTICLECirculation. 2022;146:00–00. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970xxx xxx, 20225Patone et alMyocarditis After COVID-19 Vaccine and Infectionof myocarditis after a first, second, and third dose of BNT162b2 vaccine, respectively. Of these, 22 (17.7%), 14 (11.8%), and 13 (15.3%) patients died with myo-carditis or within 28 days from hospital admission. Last, there were 11, 40, and 8 patients who were admitted to the hospital for myocarditis after, respectively, a first, second, and third dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine. None of these patients died with myocarditis or within 28 days from hospital admission with myocarditis (Table2).In the overall population, we confirmed our previous findings that the risk of hospitalization or death from myocarditis was higher after SARS-CoV-2 infection than vaccination and was greater after the first 2 doses of mRNA vaccine than after adenovirus vaccine (Table3; Table S3; Figure). There was an increased risk of myo-carditis at 1 to 28 days after the first dose of ChAdOx1 (IRR, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.09–1.62]) and BNT162b2 (IRR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.24–1.85]).There was an increased risk of myocarditis at 1 to 28 days after a second dose of BNT162b2 (IRR, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.28–1.92]) and mRNA-1273 (IRR, 11.76 [95% CI, 7.25–19.08]); and after a booster dose of BNT162b2 (IRR, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.33–2.22]) and mRNA-1273 (IRR, 2.64 [95% CI, 1.25–5.58]).Vaccine-Associated Myocarditis in MenOf the 17918020 men vaccinated in England in the study period, 6158584 (34.4%) were younger than 40 years, and 11759 436 (65.6%) were 40 years or older (Table1). Analysis restricted to younger men age younger than 40 years showed an increased risk of myocarditis Black African0.9 (185 852)1.0 (218 158)1.0 (12 121)0.9 (176 094)0.9 (164 260)0.9 (9258)1.1 (588)0.6 (98 216)0.5 (16 997)1.0 (57 157)Chinese0.3 (63 180)0.3 (70 206)0.4 (5176)0.3 (61 902)0.3 (58 438)0.5 (4902)0.3 (149)0.3 (47 390)0.3 (11 899)0.2 (11 732)Other1.8 (378 719)2.4 (502 815)2.6 (31 811)1.8 (363 257)2.2 (388 674)2.5 (27 107)1.7 (902)1.4 (245 301)1.4 (50 501)2.3 (138 024)Not recorded24.0(4 959 464)26.7(5 592 847)39.0(472 992)24.0(4 813 156)26.8(4 809 146)38.5(418 633)1 7. 1(9163)20.1(3 523 123)25.1(922 223)22.7(1 348 137)History of myocarditis Previous myo-carditis<0.1 (1837)<0.1 (1632)<0.1 (69)<0.1 (1778)<0.1 (1511)<0.1 (56)<0.1 (18)<0.1 (1885)<0.1 (272)<0.1 (687)COVID-19 status†No COVID-1986.3(17 815 732)86.0(18 052 842)85.8(1 039 833)86.3(17 334 448)8 7. 3(15 674 125)86.2(937 147)88.4(47 367)90.5(15 846 583)88.0(3 230 055)…COVID-19 previous vac-cination5.9(1 227 131)7. 8(1 629 334)8.4(101 484)5.9(1 183 882)6.5(1 170 434)7. 8(85 166)6.3(3398)4.7 (815 805)5.3(194 056)49.8(2 958 026)COVID-19 after first dose0.7(143 526)2.8(594 914)3.2(38 200)0.5(99 981)2.2(401 516)3.0(32 222)0.9(456)0.6 (108 097)0.4(15 316)13.1(776 725)COVID-19 after second dose6.7(1 383 490)3.0(638 578)2.7(32 215)6.9(1 381 868)3.6(639 976)3.0(32 452)1.8(969)3.5 (621 836)5.8(213 627)34.6(2 054 331)COVID-19 after booster dose0.4(80 807)0.3(64 035)<0.1(224)0.4(80 796)0.4(64 035)<0.1(233)2.6(1416)0.7(125 372)0.5(18 277)2.4(145 071)No. of dosesOne dose only2.3(467 328)14.8(3 114 034)11.9(144 026)………………12.8(761 515)Two doses only36.0(7 430 747)45.1(9 464 269)80.8(979 495)36.5(7 328 422)53.2(9 550 989)91.7(996 599)………51.5(3 054 000)Two doses + booster61.8(12 752 610)40.0(8 401 400)7. 3(88 435)63.5(12 752 553)46.8(8 399 097)8.3 (90 621)100.0(53 606)100.0(17 517 692)100.0(3 671 331)35.7(2 118 638)Type of vaccinesTwo doses of ChAdOx19 7. 0(20 040 458)……99.8(20 040 458)……83.0(44 472)55.8(9 780 549)79.1(2 903 545)46.2(2 741 419)Two doses of BNT162b2…84.9(17 815 058)……99.2(17 815 058)…5.1(2760)43.7(7 653 274)19.6(720 535)38.0(2 256 069)Two doses of mRNA-1273……8 7. 5(1 060 277)……9 7. 5(1 060 277)<0.1(8)0.3(45 269)1.2(42 783)2.5(146 385)*Among vaccinated individuals. †Determined by a SARS-CoV-2 test. Table 1.ContinuedChAdOx1BNT162b2mRNA-1273ChAdOx1BNT162b2mRNA-1273ChAdOx1BNT162b2mRNA-1273SARS- CoV-2 positive*One dose (n=42 842 345)Two doses (n=39 118 282)Booster doses (n=21 242 629)(n= 5 934 153)% (n)% (n) % (n)% (n)% (n)% (n)% (n)% (n)% (n)% (n)

After COVID-19 Vaccine and Infectionafter a first dose of BNT162b2 (IRR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.30–2.62]) and mRNA-1273 (IRR, 3.06 [95% CI, 1.33–7.03]); and a second dose of ChAdOx1 (IRR, 2.73 [95% CI, 1.62–4.60]), BNT162b2 (IRR, 3.08 [95% CI, 2.24–4.24]), and mRNA-1273 (IRR, 16.83 [95% CI, 9.11–31.11]). The risk of myocarditis for older men 40 years or more was associated with a booster dose of both mRNA vaccines, BNT162b2 (IRR, 2.15 [95% CI, 1.46–3.17]) and mRNA-1273 (IRR, 3.76 [95% CI, 1.41–10.02]) (Table 3).Vaccine-Associated Myocarditis in WomenOf the 20 979 754 women vaccinated in England in the study period, 7 201 472 (34.3%) were younger than 40 Table 2. Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Patients Who Were Admitted to the Hospital for Myocarditis in the 1 to 28 Days After a COVID-19 Vaccine First Dose, Second Dose, and Booster Dose or SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among the Vaccinated Population in England from December 1, 2020, Until December 15, 2021VariableBaselineRisk set (1–28 days after exposure)ChAdOx1BNT162b2mRNA-1273 First dose Second dose Booster dose First dose Second dose Booster dose First dose Second dose Booster dose Total no. of people22441409001241198511408Sex Women40.4 (907)40.7 (57)26.7 (24)…41.1 (51)28.6 (34)45.9 (39)*** Men59.4 (1333)59.3 (83)73.3 (66)…58.1 (72)70.6 (84)54.1 (46)>5>5>5 Not recorded0.2 (4)00…0.8 (1)0.8 (1)0000Age Mean age (SD)53.8 (19.7)57.5 (17.5)54.2 (18.0)…48.7 (24.3)45.0 (24.8)67.2 (15.8)27.0 (9.5)24.9 (6.3)61.8 (14.8) <40 y26.3 (590)14.3 (20)25.6 (23)…46.8 (58)58.8 (70)7.1 (6)>5>5≥40 y73.7 (1654)85.7 (120)74.4 (67)…53.2 (66)41.2 (49)92.9 (79)>5Deaths with myocarditis or within 28 days of hospital admission with myocarditis No. of deaths10.9 (245)28.6 (40)12.2 (11)…17.7 (22)11.8 (14)15.3 (13)……… Mean age of death (SD), y68.7 (14.3)62.1 (17.4)65.2 (10.4)…67.8 (20.4)69.2 (21.6)78 (8.7)……… No. of deaths Women38.2 (92)35.0 (14)…57.1 (12)46.1 (6)……… Men61.8 (149)65.0 (26)>5…42.9 (9)53.9 (7)> 5……… Not recorded0.2 (4)000.8 (1)0.8 (1)0COVID-19 status (positive SARS-CoV-2 test) No COVID-19…72.9 (102)82.2 (74)…71.8 (89)88.2 (105)81.2 (69)54.5 (6)90.0 (36)100.0 (8) COVID-19 previous vac-cination…12.9 (18)11.1 (10)…10.5 (13)8.2 (7)… COVID-19 after first dose…11.4 (16)…15.3 (19)… COVID-19 after second dose…5.6 (5)…5.0 (6)… COVID-19 after booster dose…7.1 (6)…No. of doses One …45.7 (64)…53.2 (66)90.9 (10)* Two …23.6 (33)60.0 (54)…16.9 (21)70.6 (84)97.5 (39)* Two + booster…30.7 (43)40.0 (36)…29.8 (37)29.4 (35)100.0 (85)100.0 (8)Type of first 2 doses received ChAdOx1…50.7 (71)98.9 (89)………49.4 (42)……62.5 (5) BNT162b2…………43.5 (54)99.2 (118)50.6 (43)……* mRNA-1273………………100.0 (40)Lag between first and second doses (days)≤655.7 (8)16.7 (15)…8.1 (10)47.9 (57)24.7 (21)55.0 (22)* 6 6–7931.4 (44)55.6 (50)…25.8 (32)32.8 (39)54.1 (46)…22.5 (9)*≥8017.1 (24)27.8 (25)…12.9 (16)19.3 (23)21.2 (18)…22.5 (9)Cells with counts <5 are suppressed. ORIGINAL RESEARCH

After COVID-19 Vaccine and Infection Table 3. Incidence Rate Ratios (IRR [95% CI]) for Main Analysis and by Age Group (Age 40 Years or Older, Younger Than 40 Years) and Sex (Female and Male) for Myocarditis in Predefined Risk Periods Immediately Before and After Exposure to Vacci-nation and Before and After a Positive SARS-CoV-2 Test Result, Adjusted for Calendar Time From December 1, 2020, to December 15, 2021 (if 1 or no events, IRR has not been estimated and reported as n/a).Time periodChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccineBNT162b2 mRNA vaccinemRNA-1273 vaccine Positive SARS-CoV-2 test (before vaccine)Positive SARS-CoV-2 test (vaccinated) Events I RR (95% CI) Events I RR (95% CI)Events IRR (95% CI)Events IRR (95% CI)Events IRR (95% CI)Main analysis 1–28 days: first dose/positive test before any vaccination1401.33 (1.09–1.62)1241.52 (1.24–1.85)111.85 (0.93–3.66)11411.14 (8.64–14.36)815.97 (4.54–7.87) 1–28 days: second dose900.93 (0.74–1.17)1191.57 (1.28–1.92)4011.76 (7.25–19.08) 1–28 days: booster dose*n/a851.72 (1.33–2.22)82.64 (1.25–5.58)Women 1–28 days: first dose/positive test before any vaccination571.32 (0.97–1.81)511.59 (1.16–2.20)*1.07 (0.23–4.90)4714.23 (9.34–21.68)326.87 (4.38–10.78) 1–28 days: second dose240.54 (0.35–0.83)341.04 (0.72–1.50)*3.95 (1.20–13.04) 1–28 days: booster dose*n/a391.55 (1.06–2.27)*1.51 (0.35–6.47)Men 1–28 days: first dose/positive test before any vaccination831.33 (1.03–1.72)721.47 (1.14–1.90)92.35 (1.09–5.08)679.71 (7.03–13.40)495.55 (3.91–7.88) 1–28 days: second dose661.26 (0.96–1.65)841.93 (1.51–2.45)3614.98 (8.61–26.07) 1–28 days: booster dose*n/a461.89 (1.34–2.67)63.57 (1.48–8.64)Age <40 y 1–28 days: first dose/positive test before any vaccination201.31 (0.79–2.16)581.79 (1.33–2.41)102.76 (1.32–5.75)205.25 (3.11–8.86)81.18 (0.56–2.48) 1–28 days: second dose231.69 (1.06–2.71)702.59 (1.96–3.44)3913.97 (8.07–24.19) 1–28 days: booster dose*n/a61.53 (0.64–3.64)*n/aAge ≥40 y 1–28 days: first dose/positive test before any vaccination1201.21 (0.97–1.51)661.28 (0.97–1.71)*n/a9414.87 (10.98–20.14)7310.52 (7.61–14.54) 1–28 days: second dose670.72 (0.55–0.93)490.85 (0.62–1.16)*n/a 1–28 days: booster dose*n/a791.96 (1.48–2.59)72.97 (1.32–6.69)Women age <40 y 1–28 days: first dose/positive test before any vaccination71.20 (0.51–2.84)141.65 (0.91–2.97)*2.68 (0.54–13.25)79.80 (3.70–25.97)63.98 (1.52–10.42) 1–28 days: second dose/posi-tive test after any vaccination*0.32 (0.08–1.37)91.16 (0.57–2.34)*4.75 (1.11–20.40) 1–28 days: booster dose*n/a*0.83 (0.19–3.64)*n/aMen age <40 y 1–28 days: first dose/positive test before any vaccination131.34 (0.72–2.48)431.85 (1.30–2.62)83.06 (1.33–7.03)134.35 (2.31–8.21)*0.39 (0.09–1.60) 1–28 days: second dose212.73 (1.62–4.60)603.08 (2.24–4.24)3616.83 (9.11–31.11) 1–28 days: booster dose*n/a*2.28 (0.77–6.80)*n/a(Continued )ORIGINAL

After COVID-19 Vaccine and Infection years, and 13 778 282 (65.7%) were 40 years or older (Table 1). Analysis restricted to women younger than 40 years showed an increased risk of myocarditis after a second dose of mRNA-1273 (IRR, 4.75 [95% CI, 1.11–20.40]). For women 40 years or older, there was an in-creased risk of myocarditis associated with a first (IRR, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.05–2.33]) and third (IRR, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.17–2.65]) dose of BNT162b2 vaccine. It is important that for all subgroups, the higher risk of myocarditis was found in the 1 to 7 days or 8 to 14 days after vaccination (Table S4).Vaccine-Associated Myocarditis by Vaccination History Analyses restricted to people who had the same type of vaccine for the first and second doses (Table S5) showed that for patients having a first and second dose of ChAdOx1, there was an increased risk of myocarditis associated with a booster dose of BNT162b2 (IRR, 1.78 [95% CI, 1.22–2.60]) and mRNA-1273 (IRR, 2.97 [95% CI, 1.13–7.82]). For patients who had a first and second dose of BNT162b2 vaccine, there was an increased risk of myocarditis after the second dose of BNT162b2 (IRR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.24–1.88]). Last, for patients who had a first and second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine, there was an increased risk of myocarditis after a second dose of mRNA-1273 (IRR, 8.63 [95% CI, 3.98–18.75]).The risk after a second dose of BNT162b2 was higher for people who received the first 2 doses within 65 days of each other (IRR, 2.16 [95% CI, 1.60–2.91]) compared with people who received the first 2 doses with a longer lag: between 66 and 79 days (IRR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.71–1.44]) and 80 days or more (IRR, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.88–2.21]). The risk after a second dose of mRNA-1273 was higher when the lag was of 80 or more days (IRR, 22.80 [95% CI, 7.48–69.48]) compared with when the lag was 65 days or less (IRR, 7.41 [95% CI, 3.98–13.77) (Table S6).SARS-CoV-2 Infection–Associated Myocarditis There was an increased risk of myocarditis in the 1 to 28 days after a SARS-CoV-2–positive test, which was higher if infection occurred before vaccination (IRR, 11.14 [95% CI, 8.64–14.36]) than in vaccinated individuals (IRR, 5.97 [95% CI, 4.54–7.87]). The risk of myocarditis associated with a SARS-CoV-2–positive test before vaccination was higher in people 40 years or older (IRR, 14.87 [95% CI, 10.98–20.14]) than in-dividuals younger than 40 years (IRR, 5.25 [95% CI, 3.11–8.86]), but no significant difference was observed between risks in women (IRR, 14.23 [95% CI, 9.34–21.68]) and men (IRR, 9.71 [95% CI, 7.03–13.40), al-though the point estimate for women was higher than the equivalent for men. A similar pattern of risk of myo-carditis was associated with a SARS-CoV-2–positive test occurring in vaccinated individuals; however, in this case, the increased risk was substantially lower and in particular was not observed for individuals younger than 40 years (IRR, 1.18 [95% CI, 0.56–2.48]) (Table 3).Absolute and Excess Risks After the first dose of the ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 vaccines, an additional 2 (95% CI, 1–3) and 2 (95% CI, 1–3) myocarditis events per million people vaccinated would be anticipated, respectively. After the second dose of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, an additional 2 (95% CI, 2–3) and 34 (95% CI, 32–35) myocar-ditis events per million people would be anticipated, Women age ≥40 y 1–28 days: first dose/positive test before any vaccination501.30 (0.92–1.84)371.57 (1.05–2.33)*n/a4017.29 (10.70–27.96)268.65 (5.13–14.59) 1–28 days: second dose220.55 (0.35–0.86)250.98 (0.63–1.52)*n/a 1–28 days: booster dose*n/a371.76 (1.17–2.65)*2.00 (0.46–8.72)Men age ≥40 y 1–28 days: 1st dose/positive test before any vaccination701.16 (0.87–1.54)291.05 (0.69–1.59)*n/a5413.40 (9.04–19.88)4711.77 (7.77–17.85) 1–28 days: second dose450.85 (0.61–1.19)240.77 (0.49–1.18)*n/a 1–28 days: booster dose*n/a422.15 (1.46–3.17)53.76 (1.41–10.02)Day 0 of each exposure has been removed because of small numbers.*Cells with counts <5 are suppressed. Table 3. Continued Time periodChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccineBNT162b2 mRNA vaccinemRNA-1273 vaccine Positive SARS-CoV-2 test (before vaccine)Positive SARS-CoV-2 test (vaccinated) Events IRR (95% CI)Events IRR (95% CI)Events IRR (95% CI)Events IRR (95% CI) EventsIRR (95%

After COVID-19 Vaccine and Infectionres pectively. After a booster dose of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, an additional 2 (95% CI, 1–3) and 1 (95% CI, 0–2) myocarditis events per million people would be anticipated, respectively. These estimates compare with an additional 35 (95% CI, 34–36) and 23 (95% CI, 21–24) myocarditis events per million people in the 1 to 28 days after a SARS-CoV-2–posi-tive test before vaccination and in vaccinated individu-als, respectively (Table 4; Figure).In men younger than 40 years, we estimate an additional 4 (95% CI, 2–6) and 14 (95% CI, 5–17) myocarditis events per million in the 1 to 28 days after a first dose of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively; and an additional 14 (95% CI, 8–17), 11 (95% CI, 9–13) and 97 (95% CI, 91–99) myocarditis events after a second dose of ChAdOx1, BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273, respectively. These estimates compare with an additional 16 (95% CI, 12–18) myocarditis events per million men younger than 40 years in the 1 to 28 days after a SARS-CoV-2–positive test before vaccination (Table 4; Figure).Robustness of the ResultsOverall, our main findings were not sensitive to censoring because of death (Table S7, sensitivity analyses 1 through 3), and IRRs for the second dose of vaccination agreed with main results when we removed those who had the outcome after the first dose of any vaccine, but before the second dose (Table S7, sensitivity analysis 5). Similarly, IRRs for the booster dose of vaccination agreed with main results when we removed those who had the outcome af-ter the second dose of any vaccine, but before the booster dose (Table S7, sensitivity analysis 6). There was no bias caused by possibly not complete data near the end of the study period (Table S7, sensitivity analysis 4). Estimates for vaccines exposures agreed with the main analysis when restricted to patients who never tested positive to SARS-CoV-2 (Table S8, sensitivity analysis 7).

DISCUSSIONIn

a population of >42 million vaccinated individuals, we re-port several new findings that could influence public health Figure. Risk of myocarditis in the 1 to 28 days after COVID-19 vaccines or SARS-CoV-2.(Left) Incidence rate ratios with 95% CIs and (right) number of excess myocarditis events for million people with 95% CIs in the 1 to 28 day risk periods after the first, second, and booster doses of ChAdOx1, BNT162b2,and mRNA-1273 vaccine or a positive SARS-CoV-2 test in (top) a population of 42 842 345 vaccinated individuals and (bottom) younger men (age <40 years), older men (age ≥40 years), younger women (age <40 years), and older women (aged ≥40 years).ORIGINAL

First, the risk of myocar-ditis is substantially higher after SARS-CoV-2 infection in unvaccinated individuals than the increase in risk observed after a first dose of ChAdOx1nCoV-19 vaccine, and a first, second, or booster dose of BNT162b2 vaccine. Second, although the risk of myocarditis with SARS-CoV-2 infec-tion remains after vaccination, it was substantially reduced, suggesting vaccination provides some protection from the cardiovascular consequences of SARS-CoV-2. Third, in contrast with other vaccines, the risk of myocarditis ob-served 1 to 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine was higher and similar to the risk after infection. Last, vaccine-associated myocarditis was largely restrict-ed to men younger than 40 years with 1 exception; both younger men and women were at increased risk of myo-carditis after a second dose of mRNA-1273.Vaccination against COVID-19 has both major public health and economic benefits. Although the net benefit of vaccination for the individual or on a population level should not be framed exclusively around the risks of myocarditis, quantifying this risk is important, particularly in young people who are less likely to have a severe ill-ness with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Multiple studies have identified an increase in myocarditis after exposure to the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine.1–8,13 Some of our find-ings are confirmatory, but we also demonstrate that the risk of myocarditis is not restricted to this vaccine but is observed after vaccination with adenovirus and other mRNA vaccines and after a booster dose.It is important to place our findings into context. One of the strengths of our analysis is that we quantify the risk of myocarditis associated with both vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection in the same population. Myocarditis is an uncommon condition. The risk of vaccine-associated myocarditis is small, with up to an additional 2 events per million people in the 28-day period after exposure to all vaccine doses other than mRNA-1273. This is substan-tially lower than the 35 additional myocarditis events observed with SARS-CoV-2 infection before vaccination. Furthermore, vaccination reduced the risk of infection associated myocarditis by approximately half, suggest-ing that the prevention of infection associated myocarditis may be an additional longer-term benefit of vaccination.The risk of vaccine-associated myocarditis is con-sistently higher in younger men, particularly after a second dose of mRNA-1273, where the number of additional events during 28 days was estimated to be 97 per million people exposed. An important consid-eration for this group is that the risk of myocarditis after a second dose of mRNA-1273 was higher than the risk after infection. Indeed, in younger women, although the relative risks of myocarditis were lower than in younger men, the number of additional events per million after a second dose of mRNA-1273 was similar to the number after infection. These findings may justify some reconsideration of the selection of vaccine type, the timing of vaccine doses, and the net benefit of booster doses in young people, particularly in young men. However, there are some important caveats that need to be considered. First, the num-ber of people vaccinated with mRNA-1273 was small compared with those receiving other types of vaccine, Table 4. Measures of the Effect of Vaccinations and SARS-CoV-2 Infections Presented as Excess Events Per 1 Million Exposed Excess myocarditis events per 1 000 000 exposed (95% CI)Main analysis Age <40 yAge ≥40 y Women Men Age <40 yAge ≥40 y Women Men Women Men ChAdOx1 First dose2 (1–3)………2 (0–4)………… Second dose…4 (0–6)…………14 (8–17)…… Booster dose………………………BNT162b2 First dose2 (1–3)2 (1–3)…2 (1–3)3 (1–4)…4 (2–6)3 (0–4)… Second dose2 (1–3)5 (4–5)……6 (4–7)…11 (9–13)…… Booster dose2 (1–3)…2 (2–3)1 (0–2)3 (2–4)……2 (1–3)3 (2–4)mRNA-1273 First dose…7 (3–9)……10 (1–14)…14 (5–17)…… Second dose34 (32–35)43 (41–44)…7 (2–9)73 (70–76)7 (1–9)97 (91–99)…… Booster dose1 (0–2)…1 (1–2)…3 (1–3)………3 (1–3)SARS-CoV-2 Positive test (before vaccine)35 (34–36)10 (9–11)63 (62–64)28 (27–29)50 (48–51)8 (6–8)16 (12–18)51 (49–52)85 (82–87) Positive test (vaccinated)23 (21–24)…39 (38–40)17 (16–19)34 (30–36)7 (3–8)…26 (24–27)61 (58–63)Only significant increased risks were reported during the 1 to 28 days after exposure. When incidence rate ratios were not significant during the 1 to 28 days after vaccine, absolute measures are not given.

Second, the average age of those receiving this vaccine was younger at 32 years compared with other vaccines where recipients were in their mid-40s and 50s. The observed excess risk related to mRNA-1273 may in part be a result of the higher probability of myocarditis in this younger age group. Our findings are consistent with 2 recent studies from the United States and Denmark in which the risks of myocarditis after mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 were compared.7,14 In the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, 1991 cases of myocarditis were reported to August 31, 2021, with a median age of 21 years and 82% male.14 Although our findings are not directly com-parable because the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System dataset relies on clinician reporting, the risks of myocarditis were higher after a second dose of both BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 and were greater for mRNA-1273 in most younger age groups. In Denmark, a population-based study that applied both case-control and self-controlled case series study methods observed a greater increase in the risk of myocarditis or myopericarditis 1 to 28 days after mRNA-1273 (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.92 [95% CI, 2.30–6.68]) than after BNT162b2 (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.34 [95% CI, 0.90–2.00]).7 They also observed the risk was largely confined to those younger than 40 years and was present for both younger men and women for mRNA-1273. The reasons for male predominance in myocarditis is not known but may relate to sex hormone differences in both the immune response and myocarditis, or to the underdiagnosis of cardiac dis-ease in women.15,16This study has several strengths. First, the United Kingdom offered an ideal place to carry out this study given that 3 types of COVID-19 vaccination have been rolled out at the same speed and scale as each other. Second, this was a population-based study of data recorded prospectively and avoided recall and selection biases linked to case reports. Third, the large sample size provided sufficient power to investigate these rare outcomes, which could not be assessed through clini-cal trials. Fourth, the self-controlled case series study design removes potential confounding from fixed char-acteristics, and the breakdown of our study period into weekly blocks accounted for temporal confounding. Of note, the estimated IRRs were consistently <1 in the pre-exposure period before vaccination and >1 in the pre-risk period before a SARS-CoV-2–positive test. This was expected because events are unlikely to happen shortly before vaccination (relatively healthy people are receiving the vaccine) and more likely to happen before a SARS-CoV-2–positive test (as a standard procedure, patients admitted to the hospital are tested for SARS-CoV-2). We also assessed the robustness of our results through several sensitivity analyses.There are some limitations to consider. First, the number of people receiving a booster dose of ChAdOx1 or mRNA-1273 vaccine was too small to evaluate the risk of myocar-ditis. Second, we relied on hospital admission codes and death certification to define myocarditis, and it is possible that we might have over- or underestimated risk because of misclassification. Third, although we were able to include 2 230 058 children age 13 to 17 years in this analysis, the number of myocarditis events was small (56 events in all periods and 16 events in the 1 to 28 days after vac-cination) in this subpopulation and precluded a separate evaluation of risk. It should also be noted that only the first occurrence of myocarditis in the study period is used in this analysis. Therefore, the results found for the risk of myo-carditis after a third dose do not include repeated instances of myocarditis in the same individual. A comparison of rates of death with myocarditis between those infected with SARS-CoV-2 or vaccinated was not possible, given that for this analysis, we have included only people who had been vaccinated. Therefore, a patient with COVID-19 who died after myocarditis before receiving a vaccination will not be included, and rates of myocarditis death after SARS-CoV-2 will be under estimated.In summary, the risk of hospital admission or death from myocarditis is greater after SARS- CoV2 infection than COVID-19 vaccination and remains modest after sequential doses including a booster dose of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. However, the risk of myocarditis after vaccination is higher in younger men, particularly after a second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine.

ARTICLE INFORMATIONReceived March 10, 2022; accepted June 7, 2022.AffiliationsNuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences (M.P., X.W.M., S.D., A.H., C.A.C.C., J.H.-C.), Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics (L.H.), British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence, National Institute for Health Research, Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, John Rad-cliffe Hospital (K.M.C.): National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals National Health Service Trust (P.W.); University of Oxford. School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, Centre for Inflammation Research (M.S.-H.). Leicester Real World Evidence Unit, Diabetes Research Centre (F.Z., K.K.), University of Leicester. Usher Institute (M.S.-H., N.L.M., A.S.), British Heart Foundation University Centre for Cardiovascular Sci-ence (N.L.M.), University of Edinburgh. Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham (C.A.C.C.)

Here is Who is to Blame for the Covid Vaccine Disaster and Coverup.

Authors: Wayne Allyn Root August 28, 2022 Controversial Opinion Gateway Pundit With minor edits.

The Number of Deaths from Sudden Adult Death Syndrome Following COVID Jabs is Growing and Recent Autopsy Results Reveal The Short & Long-term Danger of These Poorly Tested Products. Articles Such As This Are Beginning to Appear in Great Numbers. Time Will Tell!

Every day it becomes more clear what a disaster the Covid vaccine is. Data from all over the world is showing proof that those who are vaccinated are much sicker, more often hospitalized, and dying in far higher numbers than the unvaccinated.

In both Europe and the USA, the mortality data clearly shows a massive, never-before-seen-in-world-history, increase in non-Covid deaths since literally the day the vaccine mandates started.

In the beginning, I was one of the only radio and TV hosts pointing out what a disaster this was and how terrible the early results were. But I sure was feeling mighty lonely. Most conservative TV and radio hosts went along with the fraud. Of course, it turns out their networks were paid millions of dollars to coverup the deadly results from the Covid vaccine.

Now suddenly everyone is waking up from an almost two-year slumber. The lightbulbs are going off. Conservative talk star Dan Bongino just days ago called getting the vaccine “the biggest regret of my life.” He now realizes he has a ticking timebomb in his body that could cripple or kill him sometime soon. He regrets getting it. He regrets ever encouraging his fans and listeners to get it.

Tucker Carlson has gone from warning the Covid vaccine doesn’t work and it’s a huge failure, to reporting dramatically rising death rates in countries all over the world. He even reported data that shows you’re much more likely to die if you’re vaccinated versus unvaccinated.

Welcome to my world Tucker. I’ve been reporting this data every day on my national radio show for the past 18 months.

When everyone around you is vaccinated and dying, I guess there comes a point where it’s hard to avoid admitting there’s a disaster going on. So now even Democrats are starting to talk about vaccine deaths and injuries. But guess who they’re blaming?

Democrats live by the saying, “Never let a crisis go to waste.” So now they’re starting to blame President Trump. Right now, it’s a trickle. Soon it will be a tsunami. This will be the new Democrat talking point moving forward.

Everyone sees it. It’s impossible to ignore. So many Americans are dying “suddenly.” That includes celebrities, athletes, rock stars and even doctors. Many Democrat politicians are walking zombies after vaccination- look no further than the zombie twins President Joe Biden and Pennsylvania US Senate candidate John Fetterman. They can’t even put two sentences together anymore. If those two prominent Democrats got on a stage together it would be like a combination of “Weekend at Bernie’s” and “Night of the Living Dead.”

So now that everyone sees what’s happening- from heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, and cancer to mass death- they’re going to blame it all on Trump. I’m here to tell you Trump is not to blame.

Here is who is to blame…

Dr. Fauci gets 100% of the blame. He knew. He conned the nation, long after he knew the vaccine didn’t work…long after he saw the CDC-compiled VAERS list of deaths and injuries from the vaccine piling up…long after he saw the vaccine trial evidence that volunteers in the trial died…volunteers were injured…volunteers were crippled…volunteers were disabled…and pregnant mothers lost their babies at an alarming rate. Yet Fauci covered it all up. Worse, he encouraged more Americans to get the vaccine, knowing the terrible side effects of this tragic experiment gone bad.

The CDC and WHO get 100% of the blame. They knew everything Dr. Fauci knew. Yet they pushed the vaccines. And then later, after everyone with a brain saw the death toll, they recommended these death shots for children. These organizations are guilty of mass murder on a scale not seen since WWII.

Biden and the Biden administration get 100% of the blame. They certainly knew about the rising death and injury numbers by March of 2021 when Biden gave the orders to OSHA to mandate the jabs at every large corporation in America. They condemned millions of American employees to risk death or terrible injury.

The media is 100% to blame. They are the PR wing of the Democrat Party. They covered up this entire massive tragedy. This is the biggest healthcare debacle in world history. And the media has covered it all up, blacked it out, whitewashed it. Oops.

The whole mainstream media sold out- even Fox News and Newsmax. I’m guessing the biggest conservative talk radio syndicators sold out too. They all took millions to shut up. They agreed no host, or guest could tell the truth about vaccine deaths or injuries. They took blood money. They sold out all of YOU – their own customers.

Doctors across America are 100% to blame. They knew. They saw their patients dying. But they were too greedy, or scared of losing their license to speak out. The doctors played dumb. They were sheep. They accepted the lies of the CDC, WHO, FDA and AMA without asking any questions. They call that “science.”

And of course, Big Pharma and the vaccine manufacturers are 100% to blame. They knew from day one. They saw the vaccine trial results. They buried the tragic and deadly results. They demanded complete 100% immunity from lawsuits. Then they demanded the vaccine trial results be kept secret for 75 years. Now we understand why.

The so-called “medical experts” are responsible for the biggest disaster in history, lying to President Trump, committing fraud against the people, then acting in conspiracy to cover it up. Trump was taken advantage of, just like the American people. They defrauded us all- and these criminals are responsible for mass negligence, leading to mass murder, and then mass fraud to coverup the truth.

It’s not “Trump’s vaccine.” People are dying from the vaccines all over the world. Is it “Trump’s vaccine” in UK, Scotland, Portugal, Netherlands, Israel, or Canada- where some of the worst vaccine death data are being reported.

More importantly, Trump was against vaccine mandates from the first day. That would have protected millions of American workers who were forced by Biden to choose between their
jobs and the vaccine. With Trump as President they never would have been forced to make that choice. How many employees of large corporations would be alive today if Trump was President?

So, desperate Democrats who conned and forced the American people into taking a deadly experimental vaccine can try to blame Trump, but that dog won’t hunt. Democrats praised the vaccine, Democrats mandated millions get the death shot, Democrats slandered anyone who told the truth, Democrats called reports of vaccine deaths and injuries “misinformation.”

This is their debacle. This is their disaster. This is their Waterloo. Blaming Trump is just one more expansion of the world’s most insane political witch-hunt.

Based on what we know now, it’s clearly time to suspend the vaccine program and investigate what went wrong. And if found guilty of fraud and cover-up, demand everyone involved be criminally prosecuted. We must clean house at the CDC, FDA and other government agencies that allowed this disaster to occur. To make sure nothing like this ever happens again, Congress must pass a law that bans mandates for any experimental or emergency-use vaccine or drug. No one should ever force any American to choose between their job or their life. Or going to school or college and their life.”

Omicron’s Mutations Impaired Vaccine Effectiveness, CDC Says

Authors: Madison Muller  August 25, 2022 Bloomberg

Almost 40% of people hospitalized in the US with the Covid subvariant that circulated this spring were vaccinated and boosted, highlighting how new strains have mutated to more readily escape the immunity offered by current shots.

The findings from scientists at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention underscore the importance of having Covid shots that are better at targeting omicron subvariants. 

From the end of March through May, when the omicron BA.2 and BA.2.12.1 subvariants were dominant in the US, weekly hospitalization rates increased for all adults — with those over 65 hit the hardest. Even so, the total number of hospitalizations remained much lower than when the delta variant was rampant last fall. 

The overall number of hospitalizations is an important point, said Abraar Karan, an infectious disease doctor at Stanford University.

“When you look at who’s hospitalized, it’s much more likely that they will have been vaccinated because so many people are vaccinated now,” Karan said. “The real comparison is how many hospitalizations do we have now versus in the past when people were not vaccinated or not up-to-date with boosters.”

CDC scientists found that vaccines and boosters did a better job of keeping people with delta infections out of the hospital than those with later variants. Effectiveness decreased slightly with the BA.1 variant, then changed significantly with BA.2 — with a much greater share of hospitalized adults who had been vaccinated with at least one booster. 

Read more: Retiring Fauci expected Covid to be ‘behind us’

Immunity from vaccines starts to wane within six months, so staying up-to-date with shots is key to being fully protected. Fewer than half of Americans have gotten a booster shot.

Adults with at least two booster shots fared better than other people when BA.2 was dominant. The majority of those admitted to the hospital also had at least one underlying condition. Unvaccinated adults were more than three times as likely to be hospitalized, but breakthrough infections still represented a significant number of the severe Covid cases, the data show.

US regulators have pushed Moderna Inc., Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE to expedite development of omicron-specific boosters for a September rollout. The drugmakers this week submitted early data to the US Food and Drug Administration seeking emergency clearance for updated shots that target the BA.4 and BA.5 virus strains. Scientists and vaccinemakers are already beginning to look toward next-generation shots that may provide longer-lasting protection against more variants. 

The new report’s findings also indicate that along with vaccination, other pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical measures should be used by those at highest risk of getting Covid. That includes easy access to therapeutics such as Pfizer’s antiviral drug Paxlovid and Gilead Sciences’ remdesivir, as well as AstraZeneca’s Evusheld for immunocompromised people. Scientists also note that wearing a mask can help guard the wearer from getting sick.  

Though the number of Covid deaths is the lowest it has been since last July, the US continues to see hundreds of deaths each day from Covid, CDC data show.

COVID-19 Vaccines Affect Menstruation Reveals New Study

Authors: Acen Winnie August 8, 2022

Clinical studies on multiple COVID-19 vaccines have disregarded effects of vaccines on women’s menstruation.

There were countless complaints to doctors about related symptoms soon after immunizations were made available to the general population. Many women became aware of heavier-than-normal periods.

The authors of a recent survey on the subject that was published in the journal Science Advances wrote that, initially, some practitioners were dismissive. According to authors, “in media coverage, medical professionals and public health specialists raced to argue that there was ‘no biological mechanism’ or ‘no data’ to indicate a connection between vaccination delivery and menstruation abnormalities.”

Experts thus concluded that these changes were more likely the outcome of “stress“. However, such side effects are not unheard of, as irregular menstruation has occasionally been linked to typhoid, Hepatitis B, and HPV vaccines.

In April 2021, researchers began surveying vaccinated women to attain a better understanding of implications of the COVID-19 vaccine on menstruation. There were over 39,000 responses. Of these individuals who offered responses, 91 percent identified as women while the remaining nine percent were gender nonconforming.

Based on survey results, 44 percent of these individuals with regular menstruation cycles reported seeing no changes, while 41 percent reported an increase in their menstruation flow after having received the vaccination.

Amongst those with an irregular cycle, breakthrough bleeding was reported by: 71 percent of those using long-acting reversible contraceptives; 39 percent of those using gender-affirming hormones; and 66 percent of postmenopausal adults.

Study Based On Self Reported Experiences

A heavier flow after immunization was more likely to be reported by older adults, non-white or Hispanic/Latinx respondents, and those who experienced a fever or weariness after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Those with endometriosis, menorrhagia, or fibroids also reported heavier menstrual flows.

The study relied on self-reported experiences. Of course, such studies can be challenging; thus, it is too soon for researchers to draw any inferences about what findings might signify. Menstruating women, for instance, might have been more inclined to reply to the poll.

Researchers are unable to conclusively state that the vaccine was the source of these changes, or, if it was, how or why the vaccine might have affected menstrual cycles.

One theory is that menstrual changes may be the result of immune system reactions to the vaccine. According to the study, “generally, variations in menstrual bleeding are not unusual or harmful, but attention to these experiences is vital [in order] to develop confidence in medicine.”

In a press statement, co-author Katharine Lee, a professor of anthropology at Tulane University, stated, that “we anticipate that for most people,…changes related to COVID-19 vaccination are short-term. We recommend anyone who is concerned to contact their doctor for additional care.”

Experts maintain that obtaining the vaccine is one of the most reliable methods in avoiding severe COVID-19 related illness, which can lead to hospitalization, long-term COVID, and even death.

The CDC says “severe reactions” to the COVID vaccines are rare. That’s not what we found.

A new poll of Americans shows that 1% of people who get the jab (2M Americans over 18) are so seriously COVID vaccine injured that they are unable to hold a job.

Authors: Steve Kirsch Jun 20, 2022

Executive summary

The CDC has always maintained that severe reactions to the COVID vaccines are rare. Since I officially became a misinformation spreader over a year ago, I’ve never believed that statement because I couldn’t find any reliable data that confirmed it.

On Jun 20, 2022, VSRF engaged the services of a professional polling company (Pollfish) to survey 500 people who were selected entirely at random.

The implications of what we found in that poll were shocking: At least 2M Americans over 18 were injured by the COVID vaccine such that they are unable to hold a job.

The US government has never done any research to determine the extent of the injuries caused by the COVID vaccines. Now we know why.

The results of our poll were consistent with an earlier vaccine injury survey by the Israeli government and with the VAERS data which has been “lit up” since January 2021 telling us “the COVID vaccines are the most unsafe vaccines in human history.”

Now we have independent confirmation that the safety signals in VAERS were accurate, just like we’ve always said.

The numbers in this poll are absolutely shocking and there is no way to spin this as a positive.

This article includes the full Pollfish survey reports and individual response data so that anyone can analyze it themselves.

Key results from the poll

The poll was about the COVID vaccine exclusively, not about other vaccines. Stratified responses are age normalized to the US since the respondents who answered didn’t match the overall US demographics.

The key results include:

  1. Only 34% of the American public is buying the bullshit and taking the vax. This is why Dr. Peter Marks is so desperate to convince people to take the jab. They must have a lot of inventory they are trying to get rid of by injecting it into you. Dr. Marks will do anything except debate our team of experts (which now includes Dr. Clare Craig and Professor Norman Fenton, both of the HART group).
  2. >1% of vaccinated respondents reported they were so severely vaccine injured that they can’t hold a job
  3. >1% reported that they believe their injuries have shortened their lifespan
  4. Since there are 258M people over 18 in the US and 77.3% of the population has had at least one jab, this is roughly 200M jabbed Americans over 18. This means that roughly 2M Americans have been severely injured.
  5. 14% of the people surveyed said they were vaccine injured: this implies an estimate of over 25M Americans with a vaccine injury that required a doctor or hospital visit (=258M * .14*.8).
  6. Since only 77% are vaccinated, a 14% overall rate of vaccine injury is an 18% rate of injury if you were vaccinated (14%/.77).
  7. 200M people 18 and over who are vaccinated*(.18 injury rate) = 36M vaccine injured people
  8. 23% of the households have a vaccine injured person
  9. 33% of the extended families have a vaccine injured person
  10. In 80% of the cases where there was a vaccine injury, there was either a doctor visit(s) or hospital stay(s) or both.
  11. Nearly 50% of the injured are still impacted today.

Putting these results into perspective

Shortening the lifespan of 1% of the people who take the vaccine seems like a very high price to pay for a virus that can be easily treated with a near 100% success rate with repurposed drugs.

For example, my friends George Fareed and Brian Tyson now have treated over 12,000 COVID patients using a combination of repurposed drugs and supplements without a single hospitalization or death if they were treated within 5 days of first symptoms. They even have a top-selling book on Amazon with rave reviews. Despite all of that, the FDA, CDC, and NIH continue to ignore them. They can’t get anyone to return their calls. They’ve had their protocol since the very beginning of the pandemic in March 2020 (it’s evolved over time).

It is baffling that the FDA approves the vaccines for our kids under 5 based on the COVID case statistics from just 10 children (7 placebo and 3 in the treatment arm), yet Fareed and Tyson who have treated over 12,000 patients can’t get a return phone call.

We are spending billions of dollars to seriously injure over 2 million Americans and kill hundreds of thousands. In the process, we did not reduce COVID, but made the problem worse with nonsensical interventions when all we ever needed was some simple advice:

  1. If you are sick stay home
  2. If you test positive, start a proven early treatment protocol ASAP such as the Fareed-Tyson protocol

We never needed the vaccine, masks (which make the problem worse), lockdowns, mandates, social distancing, or new drugs. All we had to do was follow the two simple steps above. It was never more complicated than that.

The data

Here are the full poll results and a spreadsheet with each individual response so you can do you own analysis:

Here is the latest poll:

  1. The Pollfish June 20, 2022 summary report
  2. The full Pollfish June 20, 2022 data (spreadsheet)

Here is the original poll which lacks Q1 from the latest poll:

  1. The Pollfish June 18, 2022 summary report
  2. The full Pollfish June 18, 2022 data (spreadsheet)

Methodology and selection

Pollfish chose all recipients from a representative sample of America and normalized the results to represent the mix of Americans.

They sent the survey to over 500 people and used the first 500 people to respond and stopped sending out polls after that point.

The first question is completely unbiased and was answered by the 500. The survey counted anyone who answered the first question.

There is drop off in the questions because not all people were vaccine injured or had a family member who was vaccine injured.

To get to the 1% can’t work, we did random selections from the data and used the worst selection which was a factor of 6 lower than the actual number in the poll (there were 24 of the 500 who said they couldn’t work but we were able to find a random sample of 250 responses with just 2 reports of severe injury so we just extrapolated that very low to the entire 500, i.e., 4 out of 500.

Pivot table analysis of “unable to work”

Because we were tried to gather as much data as we could (we asked people to respond even they weren’t personally injured), we need to do a pivot table analysis rather than rely on the Pollfish summaries if we want to compute the true number of people who are so severely vaccine injured that they cannot hold a job.

I imported all the raw data into Airtable to do the analysis.

One of the most interesting results from the pivot table below is that if you are reporting your own injury, then 44% of the time you are unable to work. But the further the social distance to the injured party, the lower the estimate. In other words, you know your situation the best, but when you are estimating for others, you estimate the percentage is lower (37% and 23% for household and family members respectively). This suggests that your perception of injury for people who you don’t have a close relationship with is going to be very conservative, i.e., the claim “I don’t have any friends who are vaccine injured” is going to be an understatement.

We can clearly see from the pivot table that 24 (the Yes-Me value) out of the 387 who took the jab are injured (we got the 387 from Q1 where 500 respondents but 113 were unvaccinated so 500-113=387).

This appears to be a 6.2% rate of severe injury. In other words, for every 100 people who took the jab, 6 people ended up being unable to work.

This is a disaster. No vaccine in human history is anywhere close to sidelining 6% of the people injected.

Could this be a sampling issue? Of course it could!

A simple way to gauge the “statistical noise” in our 500 responses is to compute the ratios by random sampling.

For example, if we just used responses 5 to 255, we’d find just 2 people who were unable to work! This suggests that to be very conservative, we should assume there are just 4 vaccine injured out of the 387 who took the jab: an injury rate of 1%.

The actual rate is likely higher than that since we took the worst sample we drew out of 10 random draws of 250 samples. We’ll get a more accurate estimate if we increase the sample size.

Comparison with the rates of COVID vaccine injury that nurses report among their peers

Does an 18% injury rate seem high to you?

You may change your mind when you watch this video where I interview 7 nurses who were willing to speak out publicly and reveal the rate of vaccine injury among their peers. Some nurses wouldn’t talk, so the rates in these videos should be considered lower bounds. One of the nurses reported an injury rate of over 50% (9 of 16 nurses).

Note: There are audio and video dropouts on the call. Use the cursor button to skip over this. I’ve reported these issues to Riverside.fm… their product feels like a beta test. Also, the preview has 8 nurses but there were only 7 in the call. Can you spot the duplicate?

Comparison with VAERS

OpenVAERS shows 14,232 permanently disabled.

Using a URF of 128 for those injuries, we get 1.8M who are unable to work, comparable to the 2M number we estimated above.

As we noted above, we estimated that 25M Americans with a vaccine injury that required a doctor or hospital visit. Using the hospital + doctor visits number in VAERS and using our 128 URF (for non deadly symptoms), we get (163626+63978)*128 = 29M which is close to the 25M number estimated from our poll.

So maybe VAERS isn’t such a bad estimator after all.

Validation by the FRED data

The FRED data shows that there were just 1.8M excess people added to the disability rollsDisability is defined here.

The 1.8M is a good match to the 2M unable to work that we estimated from our polling data.

Validation by the government of Israel

Our final validation point is the proactive poll done by the government of Israel to assess vaccine side effects among the vaccinated. This article describes that study. Among the highlights:

  1. About 25% of people with pre-existing auto-immune disorders, depression or anxiety reported a worsening of their symptoms following the booster.
  2. 4.5% of respondents reported neurological problems
  3. 17% reported shaking. Ask yourself: have you ever experienced shaking from a previous vaccine? I didn’t think so.

So our 18% rate of injury isn’t all that far off what the Israeli government found (in particular the 17% rate of shaking).

Validation by anecdote

A Detroit TV station asked people for stories of the unvaxxed dying from COVID and instead was hammered with over 180,000 stories of vaccine injuries that the station then ignored.

If a Detroit TV station can get 180,000 stories of vaccine injuries without even trying, how many vaccine injury stories do you think are out there? I’d guess a lot more than 180,000.

Imagine… a vaccine so powerful it can generate 180,000 injuries documented right there. So there are likely at least 10X more in the entire country would be a pretty conservative estimate.

Crude cost benefit analysis

The Pfizer trial which was done early when the vaccine closer matched the variant of COVID only saved 1 COVID life for every 22,000 fully vaccinated people. So when we look at comparing fewer than 10,000 lives saved (since there are 220M fully vaccinated people) with the 2M people who are permanently disabled and the over 200,000 who were killed by the COVID vaccines, it looks like an extremely bad trade off because the risk > > benefit.

What vaccine injury look like

Many people never recognize vaccine injury because they don’t know what it looks like.

For example, as I am writing this article, I received the following message from one of my subscribers:

So my mom’s very dear friend called me tonight to tell me that her cancer came back. She was diagnosed over 20 years ago and has been cancer-free. I asked her did you get boosted she said yes, I already knew she was vaccinated. She said don’t start asking me these questions. What does that have to do with anything? They now found cancer all over her uterus and it’s now spreading to her body. You think it’s from the vaccine?  She was perfectly fine all these years before getting vaccinated. It makes me so sad she will probably end up dying.

I hear these stories all the time of a new cancer or a cancer that was under control suddenly coming back with a vengeance. These aren’t coincidences. While for any individual case it may be difficult to determine a cause, in aggregate we are seeing rates of cancer post vaccine that are unprecedented.

This is why Dr. Ryan Cole said, “Since January 1, in the laboratory, I’m seeing a 20 times increase of endometrial cancers over what I see on an annual basis.”

Note: It’s amusing to me that when you search for that quote in Google, you only get articles debunking the claim whereas if you search in DuckDuckGo, you get articles with the original quote. This is pretty sad because Dr. Cole is highly respected among his peers for telling the truth. It’s a pity we never get a chance to have a fair debate with people who claim we are spreading misinformation.

And the personal stories

A lot of people tell me they know hundreds of people and none are vaccine injured.

Perhaps.

Or perhaps 95% of the vaccine injured don’t speak out about their vaccine injury.

We saw from the poll that people are poor at spotting vaccine injuries of their friends. For example, I have many friends who are vaccine injured but you’d never know it unless you asked them.

It feels like for every person who sees nothing, I hear from people with the opposite experience. Here’s one from overseas with multiple vaccines:

I have had so many of my relatives, neighbors and acquaintances succumb to this poison. Just yesterday a 30 year old acquaintance died of a sudden heart attack. My aunt is suffering from autoimmune mediated arthritis after she got her 2nd Pfizer shot. A neighbor died after receiving the first dose of Sinovac Vaccine. A relative died after receiving the 2nd dose of SinoVac….So many to list!!

Replicating the poll

The out-of-pocket cost for the poll is $500. Anyone could replicate it.

I’m sure fact checkers will spend $50,000 to replicate it 100 times until they get the results that match their narrative, and then publish that.

We didn’t do that. We’ve never asked this set of questions ever before. The questions weren’t designed to elicit a specific response. We put together the questions we wanted, we ran the poll, and we published the results.

But the poll is affordable enough that if you don’t believe me, you can replicate it yourself.

Attacking this poll

I know what is going to happen.

The underqualified “fact checkers” are going to be out in force on this one. They’ll say the survey is biased, that there was a lot of drop off, and that ONLY vaccine injured people answered the key questions.

There is only one tiny little problem with such analysis: it isn’t true.

The respondents were a cross section of America chosen by Pollfish. The survey stops accruing new takers after the first 500 responses are received. The first question was neutral in that answering it tells you nothing about what lies ahead. There is therefore no selection bias upon reading the first question.

Secondly, there was drop off. That was expected. But it didn’t matter because we are using absolute counts.

Thirdly, they will say it was a small poll of only 500 people. That’s true. We will be repeating the poll with a larger sample size to reduce the confidence intervals.

Finally, the fact checker could claim, without any evidence (who needs evidence when you are the fact checker?), that the evil anti-vaxers gamed the result. I looked for evidence of gaming and didn’t find any. For example, if you were unvaccinated and nobody in your family was injured, nobody answered the “unable to hold job” injury question.

Why didn’t our government warn us of all of this?

At the very least our government should have warned us with something like:

Hey, the Pfizer trial showed we can save 1 life in 22,000 from dying from COVID. So to save 10,000 lives from a COVID death, we’re going to disable 1.8M of you and kill over 200,000 of you. That’s just the way it goes.

Summary

The COVID vaccines are the most dangerous vaccines in human history. There are systemic flaws in the medical system that cause doctors to fail to recognize the evidence in plain sight. But that doesn’t change the reality. The COVID vaccines have killed hundreds of thousands of people and severely injured millions more. Since there is a safe, inexpensive alternative (early treatment protocols) with near 100% efficacy in reducing hospitalization and death, the vaccines should be immediately halted for all age groups. That would be the right thing to do.

But admitting they made a mistake would be an embarrassment to the medical community, government agencies, and Congress. So they will continue to look the other way and find ways to discredit the evidence and the brave people who are speaking out. They will continue to avoid any accountability by agreeing to an open debate. And in the meantime, millions more will be disabled, and hundreds of thousands will die prematurely.

Doctors and nurses know what is going on, but will not speak out as a group because they will lose their jobs and ability to practice medicine. So they keep their heads down.

The other doctors are so blue-pilled, they actually still believe the CDC. When Pfizer presents safety and efficacy data that is appalling to anyone with a working brain, they simply look at the vote count of the outside committees (unanimously approved) and never bother to learn more about what just happened. They won’t even watch this 4 minute video that explains just how bad the trial data was.

When we discovered that there wasn’t a single death from COVID-19 in the entire state of Massachusetts in both 2020 and 2021 in age 5 to 11, did that change anything? Of course not. COVID is an emergency because it might kill kids in the future and you can never be too careful when it comes to saving kids’ lives. But when large numbers of kids are killed by the vaccine, we simply look the other way. That’s not an emergency; it doesn’t even exist. Their odd causes of death are ignored.

My survey can be easily replicated at low cost. Over 2M Americans are so seriously injured they cannot hold a job. It’s not something you joke about.

The sad thing is that my survey won’t change any minds, even if it is replicated over and over. It will just add more evidence to the public record that the medical community is causing great harm and completely incapable of seeing the truth. They will not allow themselves to be held accountable in an open discussion— ever.

The American people won’t change their minds until the doctors change their minds. And the doctors are so well trained to respect the medical authorities like the FDA, CDC, and NIH and/or sufficiently afraid of the repercussions of speaking out, that nothing will change anytime soon.

The truth always comes out sooner or later. The later it comes out, the greater the damage will be to all these institutions that people once trusted.

The other thing I know is that the scale of this deception is unprecedented. When this unravels, which I have no doubt that it will, it will destroy our trust in:

  1. the medical community
  2. the HHS government agencies: CDC, FDA, NIH
  3. the mainstream media
  4. Congress
  5. State and local government officials
  6. CEOs who imposed vaccine mandates
  7. local health officials
  8. Mainstream social networks
  9. Fact checkers
  10. The Gates Foundation
  11. Bill Gates
  12. The Rockefeller Foundation
  13. the drug companies
  14. medical boards
  15. clinical trials
  16. medical journals
  17. … and more…

This survey is just one more nail in the coffin of the “safe and effective” narrative. Nothing more.

Liver injury after mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in a liver transplant recipient

Authors: Jérôme Dumortiera,b,⁎ Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2022 Jan; 46(1):101743.16.  doi: 10.1016/j.clinre.2021.101743 PMCID: PMC8214934PMID: 34146727

Coronavirus disease-2019 (Covid-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an ongoing global pandemic of major concern, started at the end of 2019. Patients with comorbidities are at high risk of developing severe disease and this includes solid organ transplant recipients [1]. Therefore, Covid-19 vaccine is highly recommended in this population. Neverthless, immunocompromised patients, including solid organ transplant recipients, were not included in the Covid-19 vaccine large trials, especially of Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines, and therefore, safety and efficacy data are lacking in this population. Recently, a significantly reduced immunogenicity of the mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has been reported [2,3]. Regarding the massive number of patients receiving this vaccination, identification of clinically relevant imputable side-effects of the vaccines is very difficult and therefore a major goal.

Herein we report the case of a 46-year-old male, who received the first injection of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine 123 days after a liver transplantation for alcohol-associated liver disease. At the time of vaccination, the patient was on maintenance immunosuppression therapy with tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil, and liver function tests were within normal range. According to systematic biological follow-up, 12 days after vaccination, laboratory findings were as follows: AST 99 U/l (normal: 10–45), ALT 287 U/l (normal: 10–45), alkaline phosphatase (ALP) 270 U/l (normal: 38–120), gamma glutamyl transferase (GGT) 797 U/l (normal: 7–65), total bilirubin 9 mmol/l (normal: 0–20). The patient was totally asymptomatic. Serum HBsAg, anti-HBs, anti-HBc IgM, anti-HAV IgM, anti-HEV IgM, EBV-DNA (PCR), CMV-DNA (PCR), antinuclear antibody, anti-smooth muscle antibody, and anti-liver kidney microsomal antibody were negative. The patient did not consume alcohol on a regular or irregular basis. Other than immunosuppressive treatments included only aspirin. Abdominal Doppler ultrasound was normal. The diagnosis of liver damage related to vaccination was considered and no further investigation was performed, including no liver biopsy. Similarly, no modification of immunosuppressive regimen was done. The second vaccine injection was contra-indicated. Biological evolution was rapidly favourable. One month after initial biological liver injury, laboratory findings were as follows: AST 19 U/l (normal: 10–45), ALT 24 U/l (normal: 10–45), ALP 117 U/l (normal: 38–120), GGT 101 U/l (normal: 7–65), total bilirubin 8 mmol/l (normal: 0–20).

We report herein the case of a liver transplant recipient who presented mild liver injury probably due to the first injection of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. Evolution was spontaneously favourable. Perturbation of liver function tests was transitory, but detected because of regular systematic (monthly) biological follow-up, less than one year after transplantation. In this context, such diagnosis must be considered together with more usual cause of liver graft injury, such as rejection, in face of significant liver function test abnormalities. Moreover, in the absence of severe liver injury, deleterious manoeuvres (diagnostic or therapeutic) must be ovoid and close biological follow-up performed. The most intuitive expected toxicity of mRNA vaccine (but also all vaccines) is related to immune activation. Therefore, benign and common reported symptoms include soreness, fatigue, myalgia, headache, chills, fever, joint pain, nausea, muscle spasm, sweating, dizziness, flushing, feelings of relief, brain fogging, anorexia, localized swelling, decreased sleep quality, itching, tingling, diarrhoea, nasal stuffiness and palpitations [4]. The flip side of the possibly beneficial adjuvant inflammation, however, is potential toxicity of the mRNA vaccines. And remember that this type of vaccine has also been evaluated as an anti-cancer treatment. With the Covid-19 vaccines, we are using this new type of vaccine for the first time on a very large scale. From preliminary animal and human studies on previous mRNA vaccines, the clinical adverse effects have included myopathy (caused by mitochondrial toxicity), lipodystrophy, lactic acidosis, pancreatitis, liver steatosis, and nerve damage and some were severe [5]. A better understanding of the toxicity of Covid-19 vaccines, particularly mRNA vaccines, can only be based on comprehensive reporting of even apparently mild cases. These cases will be more easily identified in special populations under close clinical and biological surveillance, such as transplant patients, as reported in our patient. Perhaps these patients are also at greater risk.Go to:

Footnotes

Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: None to declare.

Author contributions: J.D. clinically managed the patient and wrote the manuscript.Go to:

References

1. Williamson E.J., Walker A.J., Bhaskaran K., et al. Factors associated with COVID-19-related death using OpenSAFELY. Nature. 2020;584:430. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. Benotmane I., Gautier-Vargas G., Cognard N., et al. Weak anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response after the first injection of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in kidney transplant recipients. Kidney Int. 2021 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. Boyarsky B.J., Werbel W.A., Avery R.K., et al. Immunogenicity of a single dose of SARS-CoV-2 messenger RNA vaccine in solid organ transplant recipients. JAMA. 2021 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Kadali R.A.K., Janagama R., Peruru S., Malayala S.V. Side effects of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine: a randomized, cross-sectional study with detailed self-reported symptoms from healthcare workers. Int J Infect Dis. 2021;106:376. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Liu M.A. Vol. 7. 2019. A comparison of plasmid DNA and mRNA as vaccine technologies. (Vaccines). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

How the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine affects human liver cells

Authors: Lund University MARCH 10, 2022 Medical Xpress

A recent study from Lund University in Sweden on how the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine affects human liver cells under experimental conditions, has been viewed more than 800,000 times in just over a week. The results have been widely discussed across social media—but the results have in many cases been misinterpreted. Two of the authors, Associate Professor Yang de Marinis (YDM) and Professor Magnus Rasmussen (MR), share their views.

How did this study come about?

YDM: A previous study from MIT has indicated that the SARS-CoV-2 virus mRNA can be converted to DNA and integrated into the human genome. Indeed, about 8 percent of human DNA comes from viruses inserted into our genomes during evolution. Does the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine get converted to DNA or not? This has been the question our study aims to answer.

What did your study conclude?

YDM: This study does not investigate whether the Pfizer vaccine alters our genome. Our publication is the first in vitro study on the conversion of mRNA vaccine into DNA, inside cells of human origin. We show that the vaccine enters liver cells as early as six hours after the vaccine has been administered. We saw that there was DNA converted from the vaccine’s mRNA in the host cells we studied.

MR: These findings were observed in petri dishes under experimental conditions, but we do not yet know if the converted DNA is integrated into the cells’ DNA in the genome—and if so, if it has any consequences.

Why liver cells and why the specific dose?

YDM: About 18 percent of the vaccine accumulates in the liver just 30 minutes after the vaccine is injected in mice as reported by Pfizer in EMA assessment report, and therefore we chose to study liver cells. This also explains the choice of vaccine concentrations in our study, something we specifically address in the paper, which are 0.5–2% of the injection site concentration.

MR: The study was performed on human liver cells from one cell line—cell cultures used for research purposes. It is a good tool when studying molecular and cellular processes, they are easy to research, and since the cell lines are easily accessible, studies often start with various cell lines.

What are key limitations of the study?

MR: One should consider that cell lines differ from cells in living organisms, and therefore it is important that similar investigations are also studied in humans.

It is important to bear in mind that the liver cells in this study are more genetically unstable than our own liver cells.

YDM: One of the limitations of our study is that we don’t know if what we observed in this cell line could also happen in cells of other tissue types, and this needs to be addressed in follow-up studies.

The study has received a lot of media attention, what are your thoughts on that?

MR: We understood that the study would attract attention, but we think it is self-evident that this type of research should be pursued. We have a new vaccine, and it needs to be tested in cell and animal models and also in humans, in various ways. The result might be surprising, but it is also a bit surprising that such studies do not seem to have been carried out before.

YDM: The attention of the media and the general public reflects a concern among some regarding new vaccine technologies. This in itself motivates the need for further studies.

Based on this study, is there any reason to not get vaccinated?

MR: There is no reason for anyone to change their decision to take the vaccine based on this study.

What are the next steps in this research?

YDM: More research is needed. Data, especially data from vaccinated humans, will hopefully sort out the question marks. Whether our results are true for other cell types in humans, or if they are specific to mRNA vaccines, are among many questions for further research.

About the study:

In a lab environment, i.e., in petri dishes, the researchers added Pfizer BioNTech’s vaccine to a cell line that originally came from a human liver tumor.

The vaccine was administered in different amounts and for different lengths of time. Cells that received no vaccine at all were used for control purposes. The researchers then investigated how different gene expressions in the cells changed over time. A gene that the researchers studied produces the protein LINE-1.

“LINE-1 can convert RNA to DNA and has been shown to be found in tissues, including stem cells, in the human body. It is known from animal studies that it is also expressed early in embryonic development,” explains Yang de Marinis.

Dr. Robert Malone: ‘Rotten to the Core’ FDA Knew COVID Vaccines Could Spur Viral Reactivation, But Said Nothing

Authors:  Debra Heine May 17, 2022

American Greatness

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was aware early on that the COVID vaccines could spur viral reactivation of diseases like the varicella-zoster virus (shingles) in some people, but chose not to disclose it, according to renowned vaccinologist and physician Dr. Robert Malone.

“They knew about the viral reactivation,” Malone declared during a recent panel discussion hosted by Del Bigtree with fellow Global COVID Summit physicians Dr. Ryan Cole, and Dr. Richard Urso.

Malone, the original inventor of mRNA and DNA vaccination technology, explained that he had been “very actively engaged” with senior personnel at the FDA in the Office of the Commissioner when the vaccines were being rolled out. The group, he noted, included Dr. William DuMouchel, the Chief Statistical Scientist for Oracle Health Sciences.

“We were talking by Zoom on a weekly or twice a week basis,” he said, regarding the early data on what risks were associated with vaccines.

“This is the group that first discovered the signal of the cardiotoxicity, the doctor continued. “They also knew at that time—one of them actually had the adverse event early on of shingles. They knew that the viral reactivation signal—which the CDC has never acknowledged—was one of the major known adverse events.”

Malone told the panel that it was a mistake to assume that the CDC and FDA—because they stayed silent—were unaware of the risk of viral reactivation associated with the vaccines.

“They absolutely did know, and they did not acknowledge it. It’s another one of those things that is inexplicable,” he said.

Malone pointed out that there are supposed to be strict rules in place for clinical researchers developing “these types of products.”

“You have to characterize where it goes, how long it sticks around, and how much protein it makes, or what the active drug product is. None of that stuff was done very well. It wasn’t done rigorously, and there was a series of misrepresentations about what the data were,” he said. “And the thing is, the FDA let them get away with it. They did not perform their function. They’re supposed to be independent gatekeepers.”

Normally, he pointed out, the FDA pays close attention to the the process, and if there are any red flags, the research is halted.

“What happened here is the regulatory bodies gave the pharmaceutical industry a pass,” Dr. Malone said, adding that Big Pharma also “misrepresented key facts about their product.”

“On the basis of that, average docs just assumed that this was something that it wasn’t. They assumed that this was a relatively benign product that didn’t stick around in the body. All of that is false,” he said.

“Many of us have been wracking our brains as you have to understand how this could possibly happen, why it’s possibly happening, and why is our regulatory apparatus, which we as physicians had all come to assume had a function that actually did the job that we could believe in and trust, and what we find out now is the whole house of cards is rotten to the core,” Malone concluded.

On May 11, the Global COVID Summit, a symposium of 17,000 other physicians and medical scientists from around the world, released its fourth declaration demanding that the state of medical emergency be lifted, scientific integrity restored, and crimes against humanity addressed.

COVID policies imposed over the past two years “are the culmination of a corrupt medical alliance of pharmaceutical, insurance, and healthcare institutions, along with the financial trusts which control them,” the signatories declare. “They have infiltrated our medical system at every level, and are protected and supported by a parallel alliance of big tech, media, academics and government agencies who profited from this orchestrated catastrophe.”

This “corrupt alliance” continues, they state,  “to advance unscientific claims by censoring data, and intimidating and firing doctors and scientists for simply publishing actual clinical results or treating their patients with proven, life-saving medicine.”

“These catastrophic decisions came at the expense of the innocent, who are forced to suffer health damage and death caused by intentionally withholding critical and time-sensitive treatments, or as a result of coerced genetic therapy injections, which are neither safe nor effective,” the signatories said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Friday released new data showing a total of 1,261,149 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines that were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and May 6, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

According to the data, there was a total of 27,968 reports of deaths in that time frame, and 228,477 serious injuries.

Despite these alarming safety signals, the FDA on Tuesday approved of a booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 shot for children 5 through 11 years of age, even though research shows that the shots provide no benefit to children, and can, in fact, cause serious adverse effects and death.

New Study Finds mRNA Vaccines Actually Hurt Long-Term Immunity to Covid Compared to the Unvaccinated

Authors:  Jim Hoft Published May 19, 2022  The Gateway Pundit

A new study conducted by scientists from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Moderna Inc. showed that mRNA vaccines hurt the long-term immunity to Covid-19 after contracting infection compared to unvaccinated people.

Researchers performed a placebo-controlled vaccine efficacy trial published at medRxiv last month, to evaluate anti-nucleocapsid antibody (anti-N Ab) seropositivity in Moderna vaccine efficacy after Covid-19 infection.

“To evaluate for evidence of prior infection in a person with a history of COVID-19 vaccination, a test that specifically evaluates anti-N should be used. Past infection is best determined by serologic testing that indicates the presence of anti-N antibody,” according to the CDC.

The study analyzed data from 1,789 participants (1,298 placebo recipients and 491 vaccine recipients) with Covid-19 infection at 99 sites in the US during the blinded phase (through March 2021).

The study concludes that anti-nucleocapsid antibody (anti-N Abs) may have lower sensitivity in patients vaccinated with Moderna who become infected. The study also mentioned that the anti-N Ab response in unvaccinated persons has been reported to be durable, with half-life estimates ranging from 68 to 283 days.

Among the participants with confirmed Covid-19 illness, only 21 out of 52 (40%) of people who received the Moderna shots had antibodies compared to the placebo recipients, 605 out 648 (93%).

Unvaccinated people are much more likely to develop broad antibody immunity after Covid infections than people who have received mRNA shots, a new study shows.

Researchers already knew that many vaccinated people do not gain antibodies to the entire coronavirus after they are infected with Covid.

Unvaccinated people nearly always gain antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, which covers the virus’s core of RNA, as well as its spike protein, which allows the virus to attack our cells. Vaccinated people often lack those anti-nucleocapsid antibodies and only have spike protein antibodies.

The researchers examined the development of anti-nucleocapsid antibodies in people who had been part of Moderna’s clinical trial and were infected with Covid. As they expected, the scientists found that the vaccinated people were far less likely to develop the anti-nucleocapsid antibodies. Only 40 percent of people who received the shots had antibodies, compared to 93 percent of those who did not.

But they then went a step further. Because the infected people had been in the trial, their viral loads had been precisely measured when they were found to have Covid. So the researchers were able to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated people who had the same amounts of virus in their blood.

Once again, they found that unvaccinated people were far more likely to develop anti-nucleocapsid antibodies than the jabbed. An unvaccinated person with a mild infection had a 71 percent chance of mounting an immune response that included those antibodies. A vaccinated person had about a 15 percent chance.

The chart that should worry the vaccinated: the yellow line shows the odds that an unvaccinated person will develop anti-nucleocapsid antibodies to Sars-Cov-2, stratified by viral load. The blue line shows the same odds for a person who received an mRNA shot.

An unvaccinated person has an almost 60 percent chance of developing antibodies even with an extremely mild infection; a vaccinated person needs almost 100,000 times as much virus in his blood to have the same chance.

Advertisement – story continues below

As the Gateway Pundit previously reported, a new report released earlier this year by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revealed that unvaccinated people who recovered from COVID-19 were better protected than those who were vaccinated and not previously infected during the recent delta surge.

The researchers evaluated the data from 1.1 million Covid-19 cases among adults in California and New York (which account for 18% of the U.S. population) from May 30 to Nov. 20, 2021.

“When looking at the summer and fall of 2021, when Delta became predominant in this country, however, surviving a previous infection now provided greater protection,” CDC epidemiologist Benjamin Silk said.

The study confirmed something that we’ve known for a long time that “natural immunity” acquired through previous infection of COVID is more potent than experimental vaccines.