Well, here’s another one, published in early November 2025. “Vascular and inflammatory diseases after COVID-19 infection and vaccination in children and young people in England: a retrospective, population-based cohort study using linked electronic health records“
This pediatric study makes it look like COVID infection has higher risks for certain vascular and inflammatory diseases compared to Pfizer COVID shots. Not surprisingly, main stream news covered this study with article titles like, “New data show COVID-19 infection much worse for children than the vaccine.”
Let me say that this paper is a classic example of how to manipulate a study so it seems to show whatever you want to show.
Let’s critically analyze this study, shall we?
First, this is a retrospective, observational study. Such studies are quite easy to manipulate compared to a placebo controlled, prospective study. When written by unprincipled authors, the results are essentially worthless.
Next, this study specifically addressed 5 conditions: arterial clots, venous clots, thrombocytopenia, myocarditis/pericarditis, and inflammatory conditions like Kawasaki’s Disease. There are a whole host of known side effects, why specifically these five?
This study looked at a snap shot in time, focusing on side effects after the first infection. Then it looked at another snap shot from a different time, focusing on side effects after the first shot. Why look only at the first infection and first shot? Wouldn’t it be more relevant to the real world to look at what happens after the second, third, and forth infections and shots?
The time period of study was different between the infection group and the shot group. The infection group was studied from January 1, 2020 to March 31, 2022. The shot group was studied from August 6, 2021 to December 31, 2022.
The age of the patients in the two groups were different. The infection group included newborns up to 18 years of age. The shot group included children age 5 up to 18 years go age. The shot group did not include children below the age of five.
These discrepancies should stand out as a red flag to the honest reader. The time period of study should be the same between both groups. The age of the patients should be the same in both groups. Yet, they were not.
Why would the time period of study make such a big difference? Recall that COVID was most severe with the original, Wuhan version, and then became less and less severe with each subsequent variant. The Wuhan version dominated until late spring 2021. Then the delta variant took over from early summer 2021 through November 2021. Then the omicron variant appeared in late 2021 and dominated 2022. The delta variant was significantly less severe than the Wuhan version both in terms of morbidity and mortality. Following suit, the omicron variant was significantly less severe than the delta variant. The bottom line is the infection group included the most severe and deadliest time span, the Wuhan period, and the shot group did not. There is no doubt that had the infection group had the same time span as the shot group, the results would have been the opposite, demonstrating a higher risk of side effects for the shot group.
The Pfizer shot group did not include children under the age of 5 and this study looked specifically at arterial clots, venous clots, thrombocytopenia, myocarditis/pericarditis, and inflammatory diseases like Kawasaki’s Disease. Let’s look at the age distribution of these diseases. It turns out that both arterial and venous clots occur most often in infants and teens. Thrombocytopenia occurs most often in infants and toddlers. Myocarditis/pericarditis occur most often in infants and teens. And Kawasaki’s Disease occurs most often in children 5 and under. Thus, by not including the under 5 years of age children, it automatically skewed the results in favor of the shot group.
Cherry picking? Comparing apples to oranges? Deception? Lies? Such is the playbook for the Pro-Clot-Shot crowd. This paper is crap. And so are its authors.
