Largest-ever COVID jab study ties popular injections to serious health risks

An in-depth analysis of the medical records of 99 million “fully vaccinated” people reveals that Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “vaccines” are linked to a variety of neurological, blood and heart-related health problems.

The largest global vaccine study to date, the research, conducted by the Global Vaccine Data Network and published in the peer-reviewed journal Vaccine, points to the mRNA (modRNA) injections from Pfizer Inc., BioNTech SE and Moderna Inc. as having the worst risks. These double-dose shots were found to increase the risk of heart-related inflammation, i.e., myocarditis and pericarditis.

The more traditional viral-vector COVID injections from AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) were found in the study to increase the risk of a type of blood clot in the brain, as well as Guillain-Barre syndrome, a neurological disorder in which the immune system mistakenly attacks the peripheral nervous system.

For the research, scientists looked specifically for 13 medical conditions considered to be “adverse events of special interest.” They fully expected to discover more-than-expected cases of such adverse events following COVID injection versus other vaccine injections.

The 99 million records they looked at came from patients hailing from eight different countries, offering a substantial sample size from which to draw conclusions.

As expected, mRNA-based COVID shots were consistently linked to myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, following the first, second and third doses. The highest risk was seen after the second jab of Moderna’s mRNA injection.

As for pericarditis, researchers identified the highest risk after the first and fourth dose of the same mRNA injection from Moderna, pericarditis being inflammation of the thin sac covering the heart.

The team also identified a statistically significant increase in cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome within the first 42 days after injection with the University of Oxford-developed ChAdOx1 or “Vaxzevria” shot – this condition was not observed in relation to the mRNA COVID shots.

“Based on the background incidence of the condition, 66 cases were expected – but 190 events were observed,” a media report explains about the study’s findings. “ChAdOx1 was linked to a threefold increase in cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, a type of blood clot in the brain, identified in 69 events, compared with an expected 21.”

“The small risk led to the vaccine’s withdrawal or restriction in Denmark and multiple other countries. Myocarditis was also linked to a third dose of ChAdOx1 in some, but not all, populations studied. Possible safety signals for transverse myelitis – spinal cord inflammation – after viral-vector vaccines was identified in the study.”

(Related: COVID jabs have killed millions – here’s the proof.)

Medical establishment still claims COVID jab damage is “rare”

As with most published studies of this nature, the scientists involved made sure to throw in the caveat that such risks are relatively “rare,” considering the 13.5 billion people worldwide who were injected with COVID injection poisons from one or more of the aforementioned types and brands.

Another thing they stated is that the association does not necessarily prove causation, though it is clear from this and numerous other such studies that COVID injections are causing profound damage in recipients’ bodies – so much so that excess mortality was off the charts each and every time another injection or “booster” shot was unleashed.

“This the largest study to date looking at the risks associated with Covid vaccination,” noted the editor of GBNews, which covered the study and still tried to argue that COVID shots are safe and effective and “saved lives.”

“Still, those left injured by vaccination are demanding answers and dissent should not be silenced, a point powerfully articulated by a man who recently confronted Rishi Sunak over Covid vaccine injuries.”

COVID injections are genocide. Learn more at Genocide.news.

Sources for this article include:

GBNews.com

ScienceDirect.com

NaturalNews.com