Blood clots, neurological disorders, and swollen hearts: Multinational study on COVID vaccines paints a damning picture



Those skeptical of the assertion that COVID-19 vaccines were altogether safe and effective — a claim long advanced by once-trusted government agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and the media amidst a historic censorship campaign targeting dissenters and critics — appear to have had their doubts once again validated.

A damning new peer-reviewed multinational study examining data from nearly 100 million people has not only affirmed the well-documented link between the COVID-19 vaccines and increased risk of heart conditions but has also highlighted troubling links between the AstraZeneca, Moderna, and Pfizer vaccines and medical conditions such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, brain and spinal cord inflammation, Bell's palsy, and convulsions.

The study was conducted by the Global COVID Vaccine Safety Project — a Global Vaccine Data Network initiative supported by both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services — and published last week in the esteemed journal Vaccine, the official journal of the Japanese Society for Vaccinology.

Lead author Kristýna Faksová of the Department of Epidemiology Research at the Danish State's Serum Institute was joined by researchers from various other countries including Argentina, Australia, Canada, Finland, New Zealand, and Scotland in assessing whether there was a greater risk of 13 neurological, blood, and heart-related medical conditions occurring following the receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine.

According to the observed versus expected rates study, which included data on 99 million people vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 across eight countries, "the risk up to 42 days after vaccination was generally similar to the background risk for the majority of outcomes; however, a few potential safety signals were identified."

"Bell's palsy had an increased OE ratio after a first dose of [Pfizer's] BNT162b2 and [Moderna's] mRNA-1273," said the study. "There were also increased OE ratios for febrile seizures following a first and second dose of mRNA-1273 ... and for generalized seizures following first mRNA-1273 dose and fourth BNT162b2 dose."

The researchers observed a trend of Guillain-Barré syndrome and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis — a type of blood clot in the brain — cases after viral vector vaccines such as the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, which Canada and European nations ditched in spring 2021 over reports of dangerous blood clots.

The researchers specifically found a "statistically significant increase in GBS cases within 42 days after a first ChAdOx1 dose." Whereas they expected to find 76 GBS "events," they found well over twice as many.

The University of Auckland, which hosts the Global Vaccine Data Network, noted that the researchers found possible "safety signals for transverse myelitis (inflammation of part of the spinal cord) after viral vector vaccines and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (inflammation and swelling in the brain and spinal cord) after viral vector and mRNA vaccines."

However, the paper cautioned that "although some case reports have suggested a possible association between COVID-19 vaccination and ADEM, there was no consistent pattern in terms of vaccine or timing following vaccination, and larger epidemiological studies have not confirmed any potential association."

The study did however confirm previously established safety signals for myocarditis and pericarditis following mRNA vaccination, highlighting "significantly higher risks of myocarditis following the first, second and third doses of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 as well as pericarditis after the first and fourth dose of mRNA-1273, and third dose of ChAdOx1, in the 0–42 days risk period."

According to the study, "Potential underreporting across countries may have led to an underestimation of the significance of potential safety signals" for viral vector and mRNA vaccines alike.

"The size of the population in this study increased the possibility of identifying rare potential vaccine safety signals," Faksová said in a statement. "Single sites or regions are unlikely to have a large enough population to detect very rare signals."

The researchers claimed that the "safety signals identified in this study should be evaluated in the context of their rarity, severity, and clinical relevance."

Additionally, they noted the "overall risk–benefit evaluations of vaccination should take the risk associated with infection into account, as multiple studies demonstrated higher risk of developing the events under study, such as GBS, myocarditis, or ADEM, following SARS-CoV-2 infection than vaccination."

Blaze News reported earlier this month that a peer-reviewed study published Jan. 24 in the Springer Nature Group journal Cureus suggested the COVID-19 vaccines were a rushed product with an "unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio."

The study noted that the kinds of serious adverse events that would be factored into a risk-benefit comparison "have often been wrongly ascribed to COVID-19 rather than to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations."

"Misattributions of SAEs to COVID-19 often may be due to the amplification of adverse effects when mRNA injections are followed by SARS-CoV-2 subvariant infection," said the study. "Injuries from the mRNA products overlap with both [post-acute COVID-19 syndrome] and severe acute COVID-19 illness, often obscuring the vaccines' etiologic contributions."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Donato Fasano/Getty Images

Horowitz: Study of young boys after vax shows cataclysmic prevalence of heart problems, blows open sudden death theory

What will it take for Republicans to stand united and call for the end of these shots, the investigation of their creation and distribution, and compensation for those injured? Do they really fear the vacuous pejorative of “anti-vaxxer” more than they love a generation of children?

In January, CDC researchers conceded in JAMA that the over 50,000 reported cases of myocarditis and pericarditis in VAERS are “likely” underreported. If they are willing to concede that point, it should be abundantly clear to thinking people that the number of diagnosed cases of myocarditis, and certainly those reported to VAERS, were likely the tip of the iceberg due to the prevalence of subclinical myocarditis. A new preprint study from Thai researchers confirms those suspicions in spectacular fashion with sickening ramifications.

The researchers conducted in-depth cardio health surveillance of 301 adolescent children (13-18 years old), 202 of whom were boys, before they got jabbed and followed them for up to 14 days after the second dose of Pfizer. The findings were mind-blowing. Seven of the 202 boys (3.5%) developed clinical or subclinical myocarditis/ pericarditis! This is not 1 in 5,000 or 1 in 10,000 as we were led to believe, which was bad enough. This equals 1 in 28 of all teenage boys jabbed! Oh, and remember, Moderna has been proven to be even worse for heart inflammation, likely because it is three times the dose of Pfizer.

Keep in mind that these numbers are just for 13- to 18-year-olds, but males around that age and a little older are also in the target zone for myocarditis. There are roughly 21 million boys ages 10-19. There are another 11 million ages 20-24. This means that if the bad guys got their way, there’d be roughly 1.1 million boys and young men with myocarditis of some sort! And we know the risk exists for other ages and for women, just at a lower rate.

Even for the clinical myocarditis, three developed pericarditis or myocarditis and two were hospitalized. That is a cataclysmic level of heart damage, which, if proven true, would certainly explain the anomalous excess cardiac deaths, sudden deaths among young people, and increase in EMS emergency home calls.

More broadly, 18% had abnormal ECGs, and “cardiovascular effects were found in 29.24% of patients, ranging from tachycardia, palpitation, and myopericarditis.”

Now, this doesn’t definitely prove that such a whopping percentage of people incurred heart damage from the shot just based on these markers, but it does demonstrate that subclinical myocarditis affecting an enormous number of people is a real concern at this point. It would also make sense why it appears that elite athletes suffered more severely early on because their level of exertion will bring out that latent heart inflammation much more suddenly than someone with a more sedentary lifestyle.

Before anyone dismisses this as a random preprint, the numbers harmonize perfectly with concerns expressed by the FDA BEFORE it authorized the Comirnaty shot. According the Pfizer informed consent document (p. 5), the company recognized the risk of myocarditis can be as high as 1 in 1,000. But the FDA was concerned that subclinical myocarditis might be even more of a problem.

In the Pharmacovigilance Plan Review Addendum for Comirnaty, the FDA conceded (p. 3-4), “Incidence of subclinical myocarditis and potential long-term sequelae following COMIRNATY are unknown.” However, they did note that a previous study on a smallpox vaccine “suggested an incidence of possible subclinical myocarditis (based on cardiac troponin T elevations) 60-times higher than the incidence rate of overt clinical myocarditis.”

Sixty times greater! If you do the math, that equals 1 in 17 individuals for the highest-risk group, aka young men and teenage boys. They asked Pfizer to complete a study on subclinical myocarditis, but it won’t be completed for another year, long after they pressured and sometimes mandated any teenage boy to get the shot if he wants to join the military, go to college or medical school, or compete in sports. There are still schools in America requiring children to get this dangerous shot. Meanwhile, Denmark won’t even make the shots available for children any more.

Consider that there are 51,000 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis reported to VAERS, which we already know is woefully underreported even for clinical-level illness. If subclinical myocarditis is 60 times greater, that would encompass more than 3 million people.

How has the government allowed this to be approved, much less mandated and continued long after the safety signals were glaring and blaring, without conducting cardiac MRIs on these boys on autopsies on those who die suddenly? One of the ways our government is violating the Nuremberg Code is by not warning people to check for subclinical myocarditis before it’s too late. That requires a cardiac MRI, which is very expensive and won’t be covered by insurance. Rather than funding the latest escapade in Ukraine, our government has an obligation to fund cardiac MRIs for those who got the shots, especially those most at risk for myocarditis. Why are government officials scared to randomly sample the first 5,000 people they find to undergo a cardiac MRI? They sure don’t lack the funds.

Dr. Kirk Milhoan, a pediatric cardiologist and former flight surgeon in the Air Force, tells CR that the heart issues were obvious from early on, given the toxicity of the spike protein, which is why this should never have been given to an entire population, even if it had efficacy against the virus. “We give known cardio-toxins for those with difficult-to-treat cancers that are not amenable to less toxic chemotherapeutic agents. We should never give such an agent to healthy children and adults, whose risk of hospitalization and death is much less than 1%.”

Milhoan cites a new study touted by the American Heart Association demonstrating that the spike protein is cardio-toxic. “This has been clear clinically, and now the cellular mechanism has been identified. No one should be given a cardio-toxic therapeutic for the SarsCov-2 infection. Even more, we should not be asking the body to be making the cardio-toxic protein via DNA or mRNA injectable products.”

The public has been convinced to credulously believe a dastardly lie that somehow there is a substantial risk of myocarditis from natural infection, even more so than from the vaccine. Let’s put aside the fact that these shots do not work to stop such infection anyway. The data simply does not bear this out. A Danish study of 74,611 children found 0 diagnosed with myocarditis in the two months following a COVID infection, compared to a 1/2,700 rate in adolescent boys following two doses of Pfizer. Now, obviously, this study only measured diagnosed cases, not nearly as thorough a physical workup as conducted by the smaller Thai study, but it clearly shows that in an apples-to-apples comparison, the risk for myocarditis from the shots is exponentially higher than the risk from the virus.

In fact, it’s not clear altogether that there is a risk of myocarditis from the virus above the background rate at all for those who don’t suffer critical illness, which is nearly every teenager. A recent Israeli retrospective cohort study of 197,000 patients within the Israeli Clalit Health Services Organization concluded based on the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis in the system from March 2020 to January 2021 (pre-vaccine COVID era) that the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis in COVID-infected patients was not increased relative to uninfected, matched controls.

“There is not yet definitive EMB/autopsy proof that SARS-CoV-2 causes direct cardiomyocyte damage in association with histological myocarditis,” wrote the Israeli researchers in the Journal of Clinical Medicine. “Post COVID-19 infection was not associated with either myocarditis (aHR 1.08; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.56) or pericarditis (aHR 0.53; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.13). We did not observe an increased incidence of neither pericarditis nor myocarditis in adult patients recovering from COVID-19 infection.”

How is it that to this day, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is the only one raising concerns about these shots and Ron Johnson is the only senator in D.C.? We are long past the point where not only should these shots be destroyed, those who knowingly promoted them despite their dangers and continue to do so despite glaring safety concerns should face a Nuremberg-style reckoning.

Horowitz: VAERS myocarditis already 47% of 2021 in just first 2 months of 2022



One of the most criminal aspects of the COVID regime was the decision to pressure low-risk teens into getting a shot that was known to cause cardiac inflammation. Myocarditis used to be a rare disorder discussed mainly in academic literature, but now it is everywhere. What have we done to a generation of young hearts, and what is being done to detect, diagnose, and treat the problem? Unless we can find an angle that ties in to Ukraine, our politicians, media, and medical establishment don’t care.

We are over a year into the known safety signals of this vaccine for myocarditis, and yet the shots still have not been pulled, even for younger males. In fact, it’s still a requirement in many colleges. Yet reports of myocarditis and pericarditis are so prevalent now that just in the first eight weeks of 2022, we’re already at 47% of the total VAERS submissions for 2021. There were 24,177 reports of pericarditis/myocarditis submitted to VAERS in 2021. In 2022, just through Feb. 25, there were 11,289 reports, which is nearly half of last year’s total. Here is the graphic presentation from Open VAERS:

The reporting to VAERS is very disturbing because the trend line of vaccination, especially for the younger people more prone to this heart inflammation, has halted to a trickle in recent weeks. So why are there so many more reports this year? There are likely two possible explanations. Either more people and doctors know about VAERS and know to look for myocarditis, or there is a time bomb with many more people now realizing they have heart problems months later. Either way, this means that the initial estimates of case prevalence were just the tip of the iceberg, and we are likely to see young hearts damaged for years to come.

What is so shocking is that several weeks ago, the CDC recognized the problem and attempted to get ahead of it by suggesting that “an 8-week interval may be optimal for some people ages 12 years and older, especially for males ages 12 to 39 years.” But historically, if we recognized even a fraction of heart problems from a shot, it would have been pulled from the market entirely! Yet here they are still recommending it, despite the fact that the virus poses low risk for this age group, notwithstanding the fact that the shot doesn’t stop transmission and that it is now outdated for the current strain of the virus!

If the reporting of myocarditis and pericarditis continues at this rate, we’ll see over 73,000 cases this year. And even if more people have become aware of VAERS, it is still woefully underreported.

It’s not acceptable (and never was) for the media and the pharma-paid “fact checkers” to automatically dismiss VAERS. It is our main pharmaco-surveillance tool and was put in place precisely to serve as the consolation to the public for Congress absolving vaccine manufactures of liability. Also, the data complements what we’ve learned universally from all the myocarditis vaccine studies – that it targets teens and early 20s more than other age groups and is more potent after the second dose. Here is the age breakdown of the VAERS reporting:

The CDC’s own researchers published a study in JAMA in which they clinically confirmed most of the myocarditis submissions to VAERS. As such, they concluded, “Given the high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, underreporting is more likely. Therefore, the actual rates of myocarditis per million doses of vaccine are likely higher than estimated.”

Moreover, now we have documents released via FOIA showing that Pfizer admits VAERS is a robust and legitimate safety signal reporting tool. In a document from March 2020 titled, “WAIVER REQUEST FOR FDA-DESIGNATED SUFFIX FOR BIOLOGICS,” Pfizer responds to an FDA consideration that the shots might need a new adverse event monitoring system by advocating that “Pfizer believes that an additional suffix for COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside modified) would be burdensome and redundant as the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has existing methods to ensure safe dispensing and optimal pharmacovigilance of vaccines.” They referred to the existing methods as “robust” and listed VAERS as one of the tools.

Thus, Pfizer can’t have it both ways. If VAERS was a good enough system to support its licensure agreement, then it must be held accountable for the blaring safety signals emanating from the existing system. We also now know that Pfizer knew of over 1,200 fatalities early on, adverse events in 23% of the trial group, hundreds of categories of severe adverse events, understood the injection does not stay in the injection site, and was aware of the fact that 16% of the lipid nanoparticles are deposited in the liver. Pfizer also lied and stated that the shots provide “Active immunisation to prevent COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2,” as if it were a fully sterilizing vaccine. They also conceded early on in the newly released document (p. 24) that the inflammation increases with the second and third doses.

In other words, all this paints a picture that there is zero safety net for the public, and the sky is the limit in terms of the scope and severity of adverse events we will see in the coming months. The public already knows this, at least subconsciously, because we are now seeing warnings about cardio surveillance programs for athletes, as numerous athletes continue to drop suddenly.

For this academic year, the Orange County, California, public school system put out a new warning for its athletics department to now mandate electrocardiogram (ECG) screenings for all high school students signed up for athletic programs. The reason? “ECG screenings help identify athletes who are at risk for sudden cardiac arrest which is the leading cause of death in athletics.” Why beginning in 2021-2022? What changed? And why won’t they identify those who got the shots as the culprits? Well, some of these same California schools are stilling requiring this shot!

Unfortunately, electrocardiograms are often insufficient to detect myocarditis early on, according to several cardiologists I’ve spoken to who have been treating vaccine-induced cardiac injury. Cardiac MRIs are needed to detect scabbing, but insurance companies don’t want to pay for them. Our government has a responsibility to pay for cardiac MRIs in young males who’ve received the shots, so they can detect latent heart inflammation before it’s too late.

In 1999, when our government still cared about human beings, the RotaShield vaccine for rotavirus was pulled from the market after just 10,000 infants received it because of a suspected potential 1/2,500 risk of intussusception, a rare disorder causing the blockage of the intestines. At the time, the CDC strongly encouraged the use of VAERS to surveil the extent of the problem. Now, with hundreds of potentially dangerous ailments, they won’t stop the vaccine even for those at the lowest risk for COVID and the highest risk for myocarditis – even after the pandemic was declared over and even for a vaccine that no longer works.

Just how prevalent is myocarditis? In one emergency room at the University of Tel Aviv Medical Center, there were eight cases of myocarditis in a small age group after having received the shots, according to a study published in Circular. This was in February and March 2021, before practitioners were even on alert for this safety signal. In another study published in the Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, eight adolescents presented over the course of 36 days to Nicklaus Children’s Hospital in Miami with perimyocarditis. These were just the people who presented within 4 days of receiving a dose of the Pfizer shot, shortly after it was approved for this age group.

Ironically, the longer we go on promoting and mandating the shots, instead of pulling them from the market – despite the dreadful degree of safety problems – the more it acclimates the public to the new normal of “sacrifice” and tolerance for an even greater degree of risk in order to “do the right thing.” Which raises the bar even further so that anything short of proving with the scientific method that 50% of people will die from it will be insufficient for pulling the gene therapy. We are like frogs in boiling water.

Nobody explained it better than Stefan Oelrich, head of Bayer’s pharmaceutical division, at the 2021 World Health Summit (at 1:37:25). Gleefully trumpeting the future of “cell and gene therapy,” Oelrich touted the mRNA shots as the first triumph of this technology. “If we had surveyed two years ago the public if you were willing to take gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body we would have probably had a 95% refusal rate,” said Oelrich with a twinkle in his eye. “I think this pandemic has also opened many people’s eyes to innovation in a way that maybe was not possible before.”

Indeed! The new normal. Just wait until the next mRNA and you will heartily embrace the taste of innovation.

Canadian lawyer hospitalized for vaccine-related heart ailment: 'I accept my role as collateral damage of the vaccine rollout.' He even got a booster.



Based on what happened to Adam Goodman — a Toronto-based lawyer — after his second Pfizer shot, many might have assumed he'd never again go anywhere near a similar needle.

What happened to him?

Goodman said in a Monday op-ed for The Globe and Mail that at first, he thought he was merely experiencing "muscle pain" in his neck and then in his chest.

But a medical checkup revealed it actually was pericarditis — inflammation of the lining around the heart and "one of the two potential significant side effects associated with the mRNA vaccines," he said. The other significant side effect is myocarditis, which is inflammation of the heart itself, Goodman wrote.

"Because I thought I was experiencing muscle pain, I let the pericarditis go too long without treatment. As a result, I experienced a dangerous squeezing of the heart called tamponade," he added in his piece. "I spent five days in hospital recovering with the help of a crack team of cardiologists, nurses, and pharmacists at Toronto’s University Health Network and a heavy dose of anti-inflammatory drugs."

'The vaccines are our civic duty'

But despite his serious medical scare as a result of the vaccine, Goodman is still a fan of the shots.

"I accept my role as collateral damage of the vaccine rollout," he added in his op-ed. "Before the current Omicron wave, vaccines helped us get back to some degree of normality. They protect society and our public-health system. Previous generations were asked to undertake far greater risks for the protection of society, including being drafted for war. The vaccines are our civic duty."

As for vaccine opponents, Goodman declared that they use "absolutely false, conspiracy-theory laden arguments" and called them "clearly a lost cause, embracing an anti-science and anti-truth ideology with a fervor rarely seen since the advent of the Enlightenment."

He added that he believes "the positives of the vaccines greatly outweigh the negatives" and that his children are fully vaccinated. Plus, Goodman said he "received a booster shot a few days ago. So far, I’m feeling okay. Instead of an mRNA vaccine, I took the Johnson & Johnson shot, which is a viral-vector vaccine less associated with pericarditis."

He added in his op-ed that he hopes by telling his story of battling a serious vaccine side-effect that the "vaccine hesitant" might also get the shots.

How are readers reacting to Goodman's vaccine stance?

Goodman's op-ed so far has elicited a wide-range of reactions. Some commenters agree with him; some don't. And still others are engaging in debates with each other:

"Mass Formation Psychosis in action," one commenter wrote, after which another commenter linked to an article refuting "mass formation psychosis," which Dr. Robert Malone noted in his recent interview with podcaster Joe Rogan.

Another commenter actually managed a balanced take: "I think the stance that antivaxers are anti-science is naive. There are plenty of scientists and doctors who question the vaccines (for the record I'm pro-vaccine) and the anti-vax people do engage in scientific thinking. The issue is more epistemological and has more to do with trust than being 'anti-science.' If we are going to convince anyone we need to be more nuanced with our thinking and less lazy otherwise our efforts will be easily ignored. You have to dig in a little to the content they are consuming to see their side accurately. Is this dangerous? Probably, but not looking at an argument from just one perspective is truly anti-science."