Tag Archive for: Vaccine

You are here: / / Vaccine

Posts

Another Pro-Clot-Shot Study Demonstrates Dishonesty

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.

/by

How Poor Study Design Leads To Misleading Findings In Latest NEJM Article

On Wednesday October 8, 2025, my news feed contained an article about how the latest New England Journal of Medicine study found COVID shots to be effective in veterans. I obtained this study and analyzed it. As I suspected, this study had the same flaws found in most other such studies. The duration of this study was only 6 months. As I have already commented on previous posts, the study from Qatar by Chemaitelly et al. demonstrated that the mild improvement in COVID shot effectiveness (46.6% in their study) that occurs early on plummets in a linear fashion, turning NEGATIVE 5-6 months after shot administration. By 7-8 months, the effectiveness was -17.8.

Duration of mRNA vaccine protection against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 subvariants in Qatar Hiam Chemaitelly 1,2,3✉, Houssein H. Ayoub 4, Sawsan AlMukdad1,2, Peter Coyle 5,6,7, Patrick Tang 8, Hadi M. Yassine 6,9, Hebah A. Al-Khatib6,9, Maria K. Smatti6,9, Mohammad R. Hasan8, Zaina Al-Kanaani5, Einas Al-Kuwari5, Andrew Jeremijenko 5, Anvar Hassan Kaleeckal5, Ali Nizar Latif5, Riyazuddin Mohammad Shaik5, Hanan F. Abdul-Rahim10, Gheyath K. Nasrallah 6,9, Mohamed Ghaith Al-Kuwari11, Adeel A. Butt 3,5,12, Hamad Eid Al-Romaihi13, Mohamed H. Al-Thani13, Abdullatif Al-Khal 5, Roberto Bertollini13 & Laith J. Abu-Raddad 1,2,3,10✉ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35654888/ https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30895-3

Had the Chemaitelly study been extended, who knows how low it would have gone. So you see, by only looking at the first 6 months, you are getting a false impression of the shot’s performance. It’s dishonest and misleading.

Poor duration and timing selection can also be used the other way, making something look worse than it really is. For example, let’s take anti-virals. Anti-viral treatments work best when administered early on because that is when viruses replicate the most. Each day the treatment is delayed, it becomes less effective. Most are not recommended after 5-7 days of symptoms. So what if a group of scientists tried to study the effectiveness of potential anti-viral COVID treatments but only in hospitalized patients that have been sick for over 7-10 days…? Does that make any sense to you? No. Of course it does not. But that is exactly what happened early on during COVID.

Another problem I found in the NEJM study was ALL participants had to have received a COVID shot in the 2023-2024 season. Why is this a problem? As I have commented in previous posts, the more COVID shots one receives, the worse off they are. The Cleveland Clinic study clearly shows that each additional shot increases risk of COVID infection.

If participants with few or zero COVID shots were allowed into this study, they would have performed the best, revealing that the COVID shot group actually had an increased risk of infection compared to the control. By requiring all participants to have a COVID shot the year before, they diminished that potential problem.

/by

Large Study Shows COVID Shots Increase Risk of Multiple Cancers

1-year risks of cancers associated with COVID-19 vaccination: a large population-based cohort study in South Korea

Hong Hin Kim, Min-Ho Kim, Myeong Geun Choi, Eun Mi Chun, September 2025

This large-scale population based study was done in Seoul, South Korea with data from 2021 through 2023 involving 8.4 million people.

Overall risk of cancer was 27% higher in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.21-1.33).

Lung cancer risk increased by 53% (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.25-1.87).

Prostate cancer risk increased by 69% (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.35-2.11).

Thyroid cancer risk increased by 35% (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.21-1.52).

Stomach cancer risk increased by 34% (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.13-1.58).

Colorectal cancer risk increased by 28% (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12-1.47).

Breast cancer risk increased by 20% (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.07-1.34).

Vaccine Platform

cDNA vaccines (eg. AstraZenica) increased overall risk of cancer by 47% (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.39-1.56).

mRNA vaccines (eg. Pfizer/Moderna) increased overall risk of cancer by 20% (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.14-1.26).

Mixed schedules increased overall risk of cancer by 34% (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.21-1.48).

Booster Dose Risk

Booster doses increased the risk of stomach cancer by 23% (HR 1.23, p=0.041).

Booster doses increased the risk of pancreatic cancer by 125% (HR 2.25, p<0.001).

Overall Trends

All demographic groups, including young adults, had a higher incidence of cancer. The mean age of individuals in this study was 44yo.

Men had a higher risk for stomach and lung cancers.

Women had a higher risk for thyroid and colorectal cancers.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41013858

https://biomarkerres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40364-025-00831-w

/0 Comments/by

COVID Shots Increase Risk Of Cancer

COVID-19 vaccination, all-cause mortality, and hospitalization for cancer: 30-month cohort study in an Italian province

Cecilia Acuti Martellucci 1, Angelo Capodici 1, Graziella Soldato 2, Matteo Fiore 1, Enrico Zauli 3, Roberto Carota 2, Marco De Benedictis 2, Graziano Di Marco 2, Rossano Di Luzio 2, Maria Elena Flacco 4, Lamberto Manzoli 1

This study was done in the province of Pescara, Italy involving about 300,000 residents. It was conducted from June 2021 through December 2023 and published in July 2025. It is consistent with other reports over the past few years showing an increased risk for cancer from COVID shots. Here are some of its findings.

Overall cancer risk increased 23% (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11-1.37).

Breast cancer risk increased 54% (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.10-2.26).

Bladder cancer risk increased 62% (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.07-2.445).

Colon-rectum cancer risk increased 35% (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.01-1.80).

The following cancers had increased risk with COVID shots but were not statistically significant: hematological, uterine, ovarian, thyroid, and prostate.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40881928

In a previous study published in 2024, Akkus et al demonstrated a link between the COVID shots and colon cancer.

Types and Rates of COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Microsatellite Stable and Instable Non-Metastatic Colon Cancer

Erman Akkus 1,✉, Bahar Karaoglan 1, Cihangir Akyol 2, Ali Ekrem Ünal 3, Mehmet Ayhan Kuzu 2, Berna Savaş 4, Güngör Utkan 1

In particular, the authors studied microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) colon cancer, named because of the instability of the tumors cells due to genetic mutations. The study ran from June 2021 through June 2023 and was published in June 2024. Two COVID shots were used: Pfizer and CoronaVac. CoronaVac was an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus vaccine developed in China and available to several countries during the pandemic including Turkey.

The Pfizer shot was associated with a greater than 500% increased risk of developing MSI-H colon cancer (OR 6.39, 95% CI 1.55-26.26, p = 0.01).

No such increased risk was found with CoronaVac.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11227084

Finally, there is a recently published paper by Marik et al, COVID-19 mRNA-Induced “Turbo Cancers”. How do these shots cause cancer? The authors review the mechanisms involved. At the end of the paper, they offer suggestions for preventative measures.

https://journalofindependentmedicine.org/articles/v01n03a02

/by

Strokes and A Fib are side effects of COVID Shots

COVID-19 Vaccines: A Risk Factor for Cerebral Thrombotic Syndromes Claire Rogers 1,*, James A Thorp 2,3, Kirstin Cosgrove 4 and Peter A McCullough 5

https://www.ijirms.in/index.php/ijirms/article/view/1982

This study used data from CDC, FDA, and VAERS databases from 1990 through 2023. It compared reports of Adverse Events after COVID shots compared to those after influenza vaccines and to all other vaccines. It did this by using Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR). PRRs are a statistical measure to help detect whether a specific adverse event from one drug is reported more often compared to another. It is commonly used to identify potential safety signals. A PRR of 1 means the Adverse Event was reported at the same rate for both drugs. A PRR of 2 means the Adverse Event was reported twice as often in the subject drug compared to the comparison drug. Indeed, a PRR of 2 is the usual cut off to trigger a safety signal.

Cerebral Venous Thrombosis was reported 2000 times more often after COVID shots compared to influenza vaccinations (PRR 2070: 95% CI, 955-4490, p < 0.0001).

Cerebral Arterial Thrombosis was reported 1000 times more often after COVID shots compared to influenza vaccinations (PRR 1120: 95% CI, 152-8280, p < 0.0001).

Total Cerebral Thrombosis was reported 1000 times more often after COVID shots compared to influenza vaccinations (PRR 1120: 95% CI, 723-1730, p < 0.0001).

Atrial fibrillation was reported 100 times more often after COVID shots compared to all other vaccines (PRR 123: (95% CI, 88.3-172, p << 0.0001).

Further, the “Pfizer post-marketing analysis done from December 10, 2020 to February 28, 2021 [documented] 42,086 casualties including 1223 deaths in just the first 10 weeks of rollout.”*

*BNT162b2 5.3.6 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021. Report prepared by Worldwide Safety Pfizer for the Federal Drug Administration and approved on April 30, 2021.https://phmpt.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf. (Accessed June 15, 2023).

By the way, this 10 week analysis is part of the Pfizer data that the FDA requested to stay sealed for 75 years. Well, they lost that lawsuit and in January 2022 a federal judge ruled that the FDA must expedite the release of these documents.

https://www.ijirms.in/index.php/ijirms/article/view/1982

/by

Autopsy Findings & COVID Shots

A review study was done in 2023, analyzing all published autopsies related to COVID-19 vaccination. In total 44 papers representing 325 autopsy cases were studied.

The most implicated organ system was the cardiovascular system (49%).

Most deaths occurred within a week from last shot administration.

240 deaths (73.9%) were independently adjudicated as directly due to or significantly contributed to by the COVID shots.

The primary causes of death included: cardiac (35%), pulmonary embolism (12.5%), myocardial infarction (12%), VITT (7.9%), myocarditis (7.1%), multisystem inflammatory syndrome (4.6%), and cerebral hemorrhage (3.8%).

A Systematic Review Of Autopsy Findings In Deaths After COVID-19 Vaccination
/by

Mortality & COVID Shots

openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality

VAERS is the vaccine adverse event reporting system managed by the CDC and FDA. It is a voluntary reporting system, thus its numbers grossly underestimate the true number. Case reports are carefully vetted by the CDC before they are added to the database. Submitting a false report is against federal law, a felony, and punishable by fine and imprisonment. As you can see the total number of reports of death associated with vaccination was quite low for many years – until 2021. No previous vaccine has ever been associated with nearly as many deaths as the COVID shots. Indeed, the COVID shots have resulted in more reports of death than all other vaccines combined.

/by
Copyright © 2018-2021 - Park Allergy Center, PC