DELIVERING HEALTH INFORMATION
YOU CAN TRUST SINCE 1989
Join the enews community - Terms
MEMBER
MENU
Filter by Categories
Blog
General
Lifestyle

The Covid-19 vaccine: The true fallout

Reading time: 13 minutes

Brian Hooker, a bioengineer and chemist who holds a PhD from Washington University, teamed up with Robert F. Kennedy Jr to scour the science and uncover all the well-controlled studies comparing the incidence of heart problems and more between vaccinated and unvaccinated. Here’s what they discovered, as adapted from their new book Vax-Unvax

At this writing, only 69.4 percent of the US populace is “fully vaccinated” for Covid-19 (without accounting for boosters),1 despite billions of dollars in advertising, systematic media propaganda, incentives, coercive measures, mandates and numerous photo ops of government officials and celebrities receiving the shot.

The FDA authorized Pfizer’s BNT162b2 Covid-19 vaccine under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the US starting December 10, 2020. Other Covid-19 vaccines distributed in the US under EUA include the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine, the Johnson & Johnson Janssen vaccine, and the Novavax Nuvaxovid and Covovax vaccines. Full FDA approval was given to Pfizer (Comirnaty) and Moderna (Spikevax) vaccines.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are based on mRNA technology, Novavax vaccines are based on recombinant protein technology and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is based on human adenovirus technology. As of May 7, 2023, the Johnson & Johnson Janssen vaccine is no longer available in the US.

In Europe, the Oxford-AstraZeneca AZD1222 vaccine is based on the modified chimpanzee adenovirus ChAdOx1; and in China, the Sinovac CoronaVac vaccine is an inactivated virus vaccine.

Fallout of the Covid vaccines

Officials have distributed Covid-19 vaccines in the US for approximately 30 months, as of this writing, and the rates of adverse events are extremely high. Medical personnel and patients have reported just over 951,000 adverse events for the vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and Novavax) in the US alone.2

In fact, in three years, Covid-19 shots have caused 97 percent of all adverse events reported to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) since the introduction of this program in 1986. The media is now beginning to acknowledge certain adverse events, albeit with the obligatory disclaimer regarding how “rare” vaccine injuries are.

Before the pandemic, we began searching for publications in which researchers studied the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations among all the common vaccines given. We have so far identified over 100 peer-reviewed articles from open, peer-reviewed, scientific and medical literature.

In addition, many other research papers support the conclusions of these studies.3 Our book Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak is a compendium of these studies.

We also included relevant research studies published by other reputable sources. We then summarized each of the “vax vs unvax” studies and included bar graphs that illustrate the most pertinent results for each of the different vaccines and vaccine components.

Many researchers have published studies investigating links between different types of Covid-19 vaccines and serious adverse events including myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle), pericarditis (inflammation of the fluid sac surrounding the heart), blood-clotting disorders, shingles (a reactivation of the chickenpox virus in adulthood), hearing loss, hospitalizations and death.

In this case, we were also able to find numerous credible studies of vaccinated vs unvaccinated individuals.

Here, then, is a summary of the most common side effects we found in this comprehensive list of the best studies of the Covid jab where investigators directly compared vaccinated individuals to unvaccinated controls.

Most common adverse events

Bell’s palsy

Bell’s palsy is a neurological disorder that causes paralysis or weakness on one side of the face. Facial paralysis can vary from patient to patient and can be mild or severe.

Patients typically recover some or all of their facial functions within a few weeks to six months. However, facial weakness and paralysis can be permanent.

Most often, practitioners reported the onset of facial nerve palsy three to four days following mRNA vaccination. Patients who received Pfizer’s vaccine showed the highest incidence of Bell’s palsy compared to all other vaccines reported in VAERS.4

In Hong Kong, Dr Eric Yuk Fai Wan, affiliated with the Centre for Safe Medication Practice and Research at the University of Hong Kong, published a study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases in 2022 using patient data from the Hong Kong Covid-19 Vaccine Adverse Event Online Reporting system.

Patients receiving Pfizer’s vaccine had a 75 percent higher risk, and those receiving the Chinese CoronaVac mRNA vaccine were nearly two and a half times more likely to develop Bell’s palsy than unvaccinated patients (see graph, below left).5

These kinds of results also appeared in Israel. Dr Rana Shibli at Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center in Haifa, Israel, and his team retrieved data on the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccination from December 2020 through April 2021, and on the incidence of Bell’s palsy, from the database of the largest healthcare provider in Israel, which included over 2.5 million vaccine recipients.6

They compared the number of observed cases of Bell’s palsy that occurred within 21 days after the first vaccine dose and within 30 days after the second dose to expected cases, based on 2019 rates. The study, published in The Lancet Regional Health—Europe, concluded that the first vaccine dose was associated with a 36 percent higher risk of Bell’s palsy.

But the risk increased with age, particularly among women. Women aged 45–64 showed a 71 percent higher risk, and those aged 65 or above were two and a half times more likely to develop the palsy. There also appeared to be an increased risk with the second jab.

In a 2023 study, Dr Wan and his team at the University of Hong Kong used data from population-based electronic health records of individuals 16 years or older in Hong Kong to assess the diagnosis of Bell’s palsy in hospitalized patients within 28 days of receiving the Pfizer Covid vaccine between March 2021 and July 2021.7

Vaccination with the Pfizer shot (first or second dose) yielded more than one and a half times the incidence of a Bell’s palsy diagnosis. But the scientists also found the odds of being diagnosed more than doubled during the first 14 days after the second dose (see graph, below right).

Overall, in a study published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, Dr Kenichiro Sato and his team at the University of Tokyo found an 84 percent higher risk of Bell’s palsy following the Pfizer vaccine, compared to the unvaccinated, and a 54 percent higher risk after any mRNA vaccine.4

Heart problems

Myocarditis is a severe illness indicating damage to the myocardium (heart muscle). Young adult men are at the highest risk, although women may also develop myocarditis. Almost 20 percent of all sudden deaths in young people are due to myocarditis. The survival rate for myocarditis is 80 percent after one year and 50 percent after five years.8

A 2021 study by Dr Min Seo Kim at Korea University in Seoul compared cardiac adverse events from the mRNA Covid-19 vaccine to those from flu vaccines using the World Health Organization’s VigiBase for adverse events.9

Overall, individuals receiving Covid-19 mRNA vaccines showed a 12.72 times higher incidence of cardiac hypertensive crisis (a sudden, dangerous rise in blood pressure) and a 7.94 times higher incidence of supraventricular tachycardia (an abnormally fast or irregular heartbeat in the upper heart chambers) than those receiving the flu vaccine (see graph, below left).

Other research has focused on sex or particular age groups. For instance, Dr Francisco Taz Tsun Lai and his team at the Hong Kong-based Centre for Safe Medication Practice and Research looked at the Pfizer shot given to adolescents aged 12–18.10 Those who received the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine had a 9.15 times greater risk of myocarditis compared to unvaccinated adolescents.

But the statistics leapt up with the second jab. Those who received the second dose had a 29.61 times greater risk of myocarditis compared to unvaccinated adolescents within 28 days of vaccination (see graph, below right). After their second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, they had a 2.06 times greater risk of sleep disturbances/disorders compared to unvaccinated adolescents.

Norwegian research backed up these results. In a study published in JAMA Cardiology in 2022, Dr Øystein Karlstad and his team at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health examined more than 23 million Nordic country residents aged 12 and older.11

Researchers observed the highest risk in boys and men aged 16–24. After the second Moderna mRNA vaccine dose, the rate of myocarditis was 13.83 times higher than in the corresponding unvaccinated group, and after the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, it was 5.31 times as high (see graph, below left).

Britain showed the same results. Researchers from the Nuffield Department of Primary Health Care Services in Oxford examined individuals in England aged 13 and older for disease incidence before and after Covid-19 vaccination.12

Men receiving the second dose of the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine showed the highest levels of myocarditis—almost 15 times more men developed it after the vaccine than after a Covid infection.

And in America, a 2022 study by Dr Anthony Simone at the Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center examined all Kaiser Permanente Southern California patients who received one to three doses of mRNA Covid-19 vaccines between December 14, 2020, and February 18, 2022.13 It found the risk of myocarditis within seven days of the second vaccine was 10.23 times higher than in the baseline period, and the risk of myocarditis within seven days of the third vaccine (booster) was 6.08 times higher than in the baseline period (see graph, below right).

To establish the “baseline period,” the researchers examined the incidence of myocarditis among the patients one to two years before the first dose of Covid vaccine. This study showed the second and third jabs had the greatest effect: no statistically significant risk was associated with the first dose.

In Hong Kong, the focus of heart issues was with the Pfizer jab and hospitalized patients. Researchers from the University of Hong Kong looked at 160 hospitalized patients aged 12 and older in Hong Kong given the Pfizer jab from February to August 2021 with carditis (heart inflammation) and elevated troponin levels (indicating a heart attack has occurred).14 Compared with 1,533 control unvaccinated patients, the vaccine recipients had 3.57 times greater odds of carditis than unvaccinated patients.

And for male vaccine recipients, the odds were 4.68 times greater. Once again, the risk was found to be higher after the second dose of the Pfizer jab than after the first.

In Israel, a study of Israeli Ministry of Health data published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the incidence of myocarditis within 30 days after the second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was 2.35 times higher than in unvaccinated people, and highest among boys aged 16–19 years at 8.96 cases per 10,857, or roughly one in 1,000 (see graph, below left).15

The researchers determined that the rate of myocarditis in the general unvaccinated population was one in 10,857, making the incidence among the adolescent boys nearly nine times higher.

Meanwhile, in Italy, researchers from the National Centre for Drug Research and Evaluation at the Istituto Superiore di Sanità in Rome tracked myocarditis and pericarditis in teenagers from age 12 and in adults up to age 39 after receiving mRNA vaccines and published their findings in PLOS Medicine in 2022.16

In the study, boys and men receiving the first or second dose of the Moderna mRNA vaccine had approximately a 12 times greater risk of myocarditis or pericarditis within seven days of vaccination than at any time between December 27, 2020, and September 30, 2021, other than during the 21 days after their first or second dose.

And in California, a team of scientists from Kaiser Permanente Northern California and the CDC looked at participants from eight integrated healthcare delivery systems in the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink. It found a significantly greater risk of myocarditis or pericarditis within seven days after participants received the first or second dose of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines than within the baseline period of the study from December 14, 2020 to January 15, 2022, before they received a shot (see graph, below right).17

Investigators showed that myocarditis or pericarditis was significantly associated with Covid-19 vaccination in eight different studies identified.18

Thrombocytopenia and thrombosis

Thrombocytopenia is a deficiency of platelets in circulating blood and can lead to spontaneous bleeding. Cerebral venous thrombosis occurs when a blood clot blocks blood flow away from the brain and can be a cause of stroke.

Studies have linked these illnesses with Covid-19 vaccines as well.

The prestigious journal Nature Medicine published a British study carried out by researchers affiliated with Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand and the Usher Institute at the University of Edinburgh.19 It included more than 2.5 million people over age 18 in Scotland who were vaccinated between December 2020 and April 2021, this time with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.

That shot was associated with a 5.77 times higher risk of thrombocytopenic purpura (an autoimmune clotting disorder), an increased relative risk of arterial blood clots and an increased relative risk of excessive bleeding anytime in the first 27 days after the shot (see graph, below, top left).

Nordic countries offered evidence of a similar scenario. Dr Jacob Dag Berild at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health studied the effects of three Covid vaccines (AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Moderna) in Norway, Finland and Denmark.20

The team examined hospital registries from the three Nordic countries to measure the incidence of thrombocytopenia and cerebral venous thrombosis (blood clots in the brain) within 28 days following these vaccines.

They observed the highest risks for patients receiving the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine, with a 4.29 times higher risk of thrombocytopenia and a 12.04 times higher risk of cerebral venous thrombosis within 28 days after the shots (see graph, below, bottom left).

Shingles

Another side effect linked to the Covid jabs, according to the research, is shingles, a painful, sometimes serious condition resulting from the reactivation of the herpes zoster virus that causes chickenpox. Anyone who’s had chicken pox or the varicella vaccine may be at risk of this reactivation when their immune system is compromised or suppressed.

Dr Wan and his team at the University of Hong Kong examined patients who’d been hospitalized for shingles after receiving the Chinese CoronaVac or the Pfizer jab.21

The study, published in The Lancet Regional Health—Western Pacific, revealed that patients who received the Pfizer vaccine were more than five times more likely to develop shingles in the first 27 days after the first shot (see graph, below, bottom right), while those who’d received CoronaVac were 2.67 times more likely to contract shingles after 13 days.

Hearing loss

Besides shingles, many of those receiving the Pfizer vaccine experienced sudden loss of hearing. Patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss can experience tinnitus. It can also lead to permanent hearing loss.

Dr Yoav Yanir from Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center in Haifa, Israel, published findings in JAMA Otolaryngology—Head & Neck Surgery showing that the first and second doses of the Pfizer shot led to 35 percent and 23 percent higher risks of sudden hearing loss respectively (see graph, below, top right).22

Risks were greatest, 92 percent higher, after the first dose in girls and women aged 16 to 44 and were 68 percent higher in women older than 65. In boys and men of the same ages, the greatest risk occurred after the second dose, making them nearly two and a half times more likely to lose their hearing.

Covid-19 vaccines vs flu vaccines

Many side effects unique to the Covid vaccines are shown in bold relief when you compare the incidence of these effects to those of standard flu vaccines.

In a German study published in Frontiers in Public Health, Dr Diego Montano at the University of Tubingen in Germany compared adverse events reports from EudraVigilance (European Database of Suspected Adverse Drug Reactions) and VAERS for Covid-19 and flu vaccines.23 These were then adjusted to account for the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) estimates of the total number of each type of vaccine administered.

Death, hospitalization and life-threatening reaction reports per unit of Covid-19 vaccine given far eclipsed those for the influenza vaccine (see graph, below, top right). The authors also reported significant relative risks of thrombosis, coagulation and sexual organ reactions associated with Covid-19 vaccines.

Adverse events in the elderly

These adverse events and others also show up in those over age 65. An FDA-sponsored prospective study tracked US Medicaid claims data for over 30 million patients aged 65 and older from December 2020 through January 2022.24

Weekly sequential testing revealed four outcomes that stood out enough to raise alarm following Pfizer vaccination compared to pre-Covid-19 vaccine historic levels: pulmonary embolism (blood clot in the lungs), with a risk 54 percent higher than before vaccination between one and 28 days after vaccination; acute heart attack, with a risk 42 percent higher; and abnormal blood clotting throughout the body, with a risk 91 percent higher (see graph, below, bottom).

Immune thrombocytopenia (low blood platelets due to autoimmune attack) showed a risk 44 percent higher than before vaccination for up to 42 days after vaccination.

Serious adverse events

Other studies directly compared vaccine recipients to placebo control recipients, notably one published in Vaccine by a senior editor of The BMJ at the University of Maryland and a scientist from the Thibodaux Regional Health System in Louisiana. It used data from the phase 3 clinical trials for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.25

This time the researchers were looking for serious adverse events as follows:

  • Death, life-threatening at the time of the event
  • Inpatient hospitalization, or prolongation of existing hospitalization
  • Persistent or significant disability/incapacity
  • A congenital anomaly/birth defect
  • A medically important event based on medical judgment

The Pfizer vaccine showed a 36 percent higher risk of serious adverse events, while those who received the Moderna jab showed a 6 percent higher risk (see graph, below, top left). Overall, recipients of either of the mRNA vaccines had a 1.16 times greater risk of serious adverse events compared to unvaccinated controls. The result was marginally statistically significant.

But other data emerged that was even more interesting. The study authors also completed a risk-benefit assessment of both vaccines. They found that the Pfizer vaccine showed an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 per 10,000 vaccinees while preventing Covid-19 hospitalizations in 2.3 per 10,000 vaccinees compared to the placebo group.

In other words, you are about five times more likely to have a reaction to the Pfizer shot than to prevent a reaction to Covid-19 serious enough to land you in the hospital.

Likewise, the Moderna vaccine showed an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinees while preventing Covid-19 hospitalizations in 6.4 per 10,000 vaccinees compared to the placebo group.

Again, the risk of a serious side effect from the Moderna shot was more than double the protective effect of the shot.

Why aren’t the necessary studies being conducted?

One reason regulators give to dismiss a more rigorous approach in studying the long-term health effects of any shots in the childhood and adult vaccination schedule is that vaccine adverse events are “one-in-a-million,” and thus we should stop promoting fear of vaccine injury. The government derives its one-in-a million figure by comparing the number of compensated vaccine injuries by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) to the total number of vaccines given in the US.

Unfortunately, most vaccine-injured people don’t even know the NVICP exists, and even fewer get compensated. The Lazarus study, carried out by Ross Lazarus of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, which the CDC funded and then abandoned—likely because the agency didn’t like the results—stands in stark contrast to the one-in-a-million figure.

Specifically, researchers in the Lazarus study found the rate of adverse events was one in 3,823 among a population of about 375,000 individuals given 1.4 million routine vaccines.1

Over the three-year study period, that translated to a one in 10 chance of experiencing an adverse reaction to a vaccine, a far cry from the mythical “one-in-a-million” rhetoric touted by the pharmaceutical industry and government health agencies. The Lazarus study suggests that federal officials and the pharmaceutical industry must pay urgent attention to this astronomical rate of adverse events.

Still, the CDC and FDA steadfastly refuse to study health outcomes in vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations.

Public health experts assert they can’t feasibly do so because it would be unethical to complete a randomized, controlled trial (RCT) in which researchers withhold lifesaving vaccines from a blinded placebo control group.2 Their argument is a sham. Pharmaceutical companies typically use this method during the FDA approval process to test new drugs or biologics when no comparable treatment exists.

For example, the FDA requires randomized controlled clinical studies for certain cancer treatments,3 heart medications4 and respiratory drugs,5 and no one appears to question the ethics of withholding potentially lifesaving remedies from blinded placebo control groups. It is, in fact, standard practice.

Furthermore, researchers can complete many other types of analyses besides RCTs using existing populations of vaccinated and unvaccinated children and adults. According to the Cochrane Collaboration, an international organization that examines the evidence for individual medical drugs and procedures, these analyses produce results equal in reliability.6

These include analyses that are prospective (looking at health effects in the future) or retrospective (looking at past medical data and history).

Adapted from Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak, by Robert F. Kennedy Jr and Brian Hooker (Skyhorse Publishing, 2023)

Resources

See Healthy shopping: Supplements for Covid vaccine injury for useful supplements and resources for those suffering from Covid vaccine side effects.

 

References
  1. Our World in Data, “Coronavirus (Covid-19) Vaccinations: Share of People Vaccinated against Covid-19, United States,” May 9, 2023, ourworldindata.org
  2. National Vaccine Information Center, “Search the US Government’s VAERS Data,” accessed April 15, 2023, medalerts.org
  3. Children’s Health Defense, “Vaxxed-Unvaxxed: Parts I–XII,” accessed Sept 15, 2022, childrenshealthdefense.org
  4. Int J Infect Dis, 2021; 111: 310–12
  5. Lancet Infect Dis, 2022; 22(1): 64–72
  6. Lancet Reg Health Eur, 2021: 11: 100236
  7. Clin Infect Dis, 2023; 76(3): e291–98
  8. Cleveland Clinic, “Myocarditis,” Nov 7, 2022, my.clevelandclinic.org
  9. J Med Virol, 2022; 94(3): 1085–95
  10. Emerg Microbes Infect, 2022; 11(1): 885–93
  11. JAMA Cardiol, 2022; 7(6): 600–12
  12. Circulation, 2022; 146(10): 743–54
  13. Int J Cardiol, 2022: 365: 41–43
  14. Ann Intern Med, 2022; 175(3): 362–70
  15. N Engl J Med, 2021; 385(23): 2140–49
  16. PLoS Med, 2022; 19(7): e1004056
  17. Vaccine, 2022; 40(35): 5153–59
  18. See 10–13, 15–17, and 24
  19. Nat Med, 2021; 27(7): 1290–97
  20. JAMA Netw Open, 2022; 5(6): e2217375
  21. Lancet Reg Health West Pac, 2022: 21: 100393
  22. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2022; 148(4): 299–306
  23. Front Public Health, 2022: 9: 756633
  24. Vaccine, 2023; 41(2): 532–39
  25. Vaccine, 2022; 40(40): 5798–5805
Why aren’t the necessary studies being conducted?
  1. Ross Lazarus, Electronic Support for Public Health—Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS) (AHRQ, 2011), digital.ahrq.gov
  2. College of Physicians of Philadelphia, “Vaccines 101: Ethical Issues and Vaccines,” cpp-hov.netlify.app
  3. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Placebos and Blinding in Randomized Controlled Cancer Clinical Trials for Drug and Biological Products: Guidance for Industry (FDA, 2019); Clovis Oncology Inc, “A Study in Ovarian Cancer Patients Evaluating Rucaparib and Nivolumab as Maintenance Treatment Following Response to Front-Line Platinum-Based Chemotherapy (ATHENA),” NCT03522246, Sept 15, 2023, clinicaltrials.gov
  4. American Regent Inc, “Randomized Placebo-controlled Trial of FCM as Treatment for Heart Failure with Iron Deficiency (HEART-FID),” NCT03037931, April 26, 2023, clinicaltrials.gov
  5. NIAID, “Placebo-Controlled Trial of Antibiotic Therapy in Adults With Suspect Lower Respiratory Tract Infection (LRTI) and a Procalcitonin Level,” NCT03341273, June 28, 2023, clinicaltrials.gov
  6. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2014; 2014(4): MR000034
MAR24
  • Recent Posts

  • Copyright © 1989 - 2024 WDDTY
    Publishing Registered Office Address: Hill Place House, 55a High Street Wimbledon, London SW19 5BA
    Skip to content