Vaccine alarmists constantly take research and pick out one little item or just mislead in general about the results. Here is an example. This is a study on heart attack deaths from one hospital in Madrid, Spain. The study period is March 2020 to March 2023. 949 patients who had heart attacks were included, all with prior heart disease, 80% men, generally quite old. 53% of patients had had at least one dose of CV-19 vaccine. Within 6 months after the heart attack, 92 of the patients had another major cardiac event and 50 died. In a subset of patients, the combination of vaccination and prior infection appeared to be related to a slightly higher risk of a subsequent major cardiac event, but in the overall study group there was no such association. Somehow this has been twisted by the VSNs to say that vaccination led to more heart attacks and other major cardiac events. But then, this group has difficulty with actual data.
The authors noted that in general, patients with CV-19 infection had worse outcomes with heart attacks, probably becaue they tend to be older and the CV-19 infection made them more susceptible to serious heart disease events. They also noted that while some claim there is an association between vaccines and heart attacks, causality has not been explained nor has any association really been shown. They said what was clear was that there was a greater risk of heart complications following CV-19 infection than vaccination. If you dig into the tables you will see that patients with vaccination may have appeared to have a somewhat higher risk of subsequent cardiac event than those without vaccination, whether or not there was a prior infection, but most of the findings had wide ranges and high p-values, well above the bar for statistical significance. It also cannot be ruled out that the changes in care resulting from the epidemic itself and the suppression measures like lockdowns and the terror campaign led to worse outcomes. What may also be true is that the combination of prior infection and vaccination leads to a stronger immune and hence inflammatory response, that is associated with the risk of heart attacks. (Vaccine Article)
The second study covers the presence of potential selection bias in studies of vaccine effectiveness. The “healthy vaccine” effect is hypothesized to exist due to those who are healthy being more likely to get vaccinated. Being healthier they may be less likely to become infected, but being healthier they also may have more social and work contacts and thus more likely to be infected, so I am not convinced the effect exists. Healthy vaccinee effect may be offset by an “indication effect”, whereby those who are told they would most benefit from a vaccination are more likely to get one; in this case the older population and those with pre-existing illness, but those populations may also be more likely to not be vaccinated if they are quite ill. The research comes from Qatar and studied those with a two-dose vax and those with a booster. Death from non-CV-19 causes in the months following vaccination or no vaccination was the primary outcome. A strong healthy vaccinee impact was seen in the six months after vaccination but a strong indication effect in the periods after that. The healthy vaccinee effect was most notable in those aged 50 and older. The strength of the effect was unclear. Those who are older and already ill may have been less likely to receive a vaccine according to the authors, but at least in the US, those subgroups were actually prioritized. Some people have claimed that this shows the vaccines have little effectiveness but that is not what the paper says. It merely says that there may be some selection bias in studies that impacts effectiveness estimates, but does not try to estimate what real effectiveness would be. And given that CV-19 infection may have lasting health impacts, I am not clear about how the attribution of death to non-CV-19 causes was done and whether prior infection status was adequately included in the analysis, as it was ignored if it was less than 90 days before death. The main point is that effectiveness studies should be very carefully designed. (Medrxiv Paper)
