Nature published a comprehensive study this week on cardiovascular risk including a total of over 11 million patients that has made a few headlines. The aim was to identify the cause of increased cardiac pathology. It should have been a very simple study comparing four groups:
- Not infected and never vaccinated
- Not infected and vaccinated
- Infected but not vaccinated
- Infected and vaccinated
It is hard to believe the authors did not look at these groups, but whatever was found when comparing them remains a mystery.
Instead, the following groups were compared:
- Not infected and never vaccinated data from 2017
- Not infected, including vaccinated and not vaccinated
- Infected but not vaccinated
- Infected with vaccinated people included but using modelled adjustments
When studies with huge datasets use modelling and fail to share data prior to their adjustments alarm bells should start ringing. Therefore, I took a deeper dive to see what else was questionable.
There were serious biases in the paper which need addressing but first let’s look at the critical question of myocarditis (heart inflammation).
Because of the known risk of myocarditis from vaccination it is worth looking particularly closely at the data presented on this. Oddly, for the issue of the day, the data on myocarditis was all hidden in the supplementary appendix to the paper.
The risk of myocarditis appears to be an autoimmune (the immune system attacking the heart after interaction with the spike protein) rather than direct damage by the virus/vaccine spike protein. Therefore, myocarditis could result from the virus or the vaccine. The key question that needs answering is whether vaccination protects or enhances the risk from the virus.
The authors report 370 per million risk of myocarditis after Covid infection in the unvaccinated. The contemporary control rate was 70 per million and the historic one was 40 per million. What was wrong with the contemporary controls?
They made it clear they removed those who had been vaccinated from the calculation in the Covid arm but they did not state they did this for the control arm. Did vaccination lead to a 30 per million increase in myocarditis in the control arm? Given the cohort appears to be old and we know myocarditis incidence is worse in the young a one in 30,000 incidence is significant.
What about those who were vaccinated and had Covid? Once vaccination (and modelling) were included, the rate rose to 500 per million. It is not entirely clear whether supplementary Table 22 excludes those who were not vaccinated, but given that it does not state the unvaccinated were excluded from this data it is fair to assume the 500 per million relates to the whole population.
Given the higher risk of myocarditis after vaccination one might wonder whether this study showed protection from infection due to vaccination, as this would lower risk from the virus. Hidden in the legends of the supplementary tables the authors reveal that 62% of the Covid patients had been vaccinated compared to 56% of the non-infected controls (not a great advert for vaccine effectiveness against infection).
Using the fact that 62% of the Covid cohort were vaccinated and that the unvaccinated had a rate of 370 per million, to get to an overall rate of 500 per million the vaccinated 62% must have had a rate of 580 per million (580×0.62 + 370×0.38 = 500). Therefore, in those with Covid and vaccination the rate (even after modelling) was 210 per million higher (58% higher) than the unvaccinated with Covid. (If supplementary Table 22 did exclude the unvaccinated the incidence of myocarditis after Covid would have been 35% higher in the vaccinated.) An extra 210 per million works out as an additional risk from vaccination of one in 5,000 among a relatively old population. The 35-58% higher myocarditis rates seen in the vaccinated after Covid compared to the unvaccinated was based only on diagnoses made more than 30 days after their positive Covid test. Any rise in risk in the first 30 day period was censored from the study. How high was it in the first 30 days and for the younger men? This critical question was left unanswered.
The data comprised medical records for U.S. veterans who were 90% male, three quarters white and had a mean age of 63 years.
Two control groups were selected:
- Patients who had used healthcare in 2017 and were still alive in March 2018.
- Patients who had used healthcare in 2019 and were still alive in March 2020.
These groups were compared to patients who tested positive for Covid after March 2020, with each patient being matched to one patient from each control and measuring beginning from the same day as the positive test but two years earlier for the 2018 control.
There was a significant bias between these two control groups and those who tested positive.
The Covid patients (not just those who were sick with it – all those who tested positive) were more obese, saw doctors more often, had more cancer, kidney disease, lung disease, dementia etc.
![](https://dailysceptic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/image-20.png)
There are two ways to deal with such biases. One is to match the 150,000 Covid patients with similarly sick patients from the over five millions controls. This reduces the size of the control group but when it is already so large this should not be a concern. Instead, the authors modelled the data until the groups seemed similar. Using an algorithm they claimed the same total number of people were present in the Covid cohort, but whereas 49,407 actually had diabetes in the raw data, 11,903 (24%) no longer had diabetes according to the weighted data. Similarly, 14% were ‘cured’ of lung disease, 14% of cancer and a full 35% of the dementia patients no longer had dementia.
There was no discussion in the paper about the reasons for this unhealthy bias among the Covid patients. All positive test results were included and anyone can catch SARS-CoV-2, so the factors that increase the risk of serious disease and hospitalisation should not have biased a dataset based only on infection. Instead the authors discuss the hypothetical issue of people in the non-infected control group having Covid but not getting tested such that the damage caused by Covid could be worse than the paper reports.
It has been well established that hospital transmission dominates as a source of spread and SAGE has reported that up to 40.5% of cases could be traced back to hospital spread and a majority of hospitalised patients in June 2020 were linked to hospital spread. In Scotland, in December 2020, 60% of the acutely ill with Covid acquired the infection in hospital. Patients accessing hospital are highly likely to be less healthy than the general population. Indeed, we know that the Covid patients in the study accessed hospital more frequently than the controls. If the bias was related to hospital acquired infection then the whole study is called into question, as people who attend hospitals are more likely to be sick.
The authors picked some control conditions to attempt to show they had not introduced a bias. Given the study was about cardiovascular diseases, including those that are an immediate threat to life and those that are very common, I would have picked conditions that might kill you within a year, like lung, pancreatic or oesophageal cancer and common conditions e.g. urinary tract infections, diabetes or prostate cancer.
The authors chose three rare malignancies, all with a one-year survival rate of over 80%, and pre-invasive melanoma – why not include invasive melanoma? They then included rare conditions and odd selection of: hypertrichosis (‘werewolf syndrome’ with excessive facial hair), sickle cell trait and perforated ear drums. When the choices are so niche it begs the question of what the results would have been if more obvious choices had been selected.
The group that tested positive for Covid did badly: 13% ended up in (or began in) hospital and 4% in ICU. The mean age was 63 years which may explain part of the high percentage of sick Covid patients, but it does, again, suggest this group may have been more vulnerable than the control.
They then compared the risk of various cardiac outcomes against the controls. However, they used the same control to compare non-hospitalised patients as patients who had received ICU care. Of course, people who have needed ICU care will be more likely to have cardiovascular complications. Indeed, many of the patients may still have been in the ICU when the measuring period began 30 days after the positive test. A fair study would have only compared the ICU outcomes with the sickest people within the control group, not the average of the whole control group.
The risk to the non-hospitalised Covid patients was low for almost all the cardiovascular risk factors.
The risk to the hospitalised was higher (but remember the controls had significant biases).
Those on ICU had a much higher risk. What is not clear is how much of this is because of the virus.
It is not a surprise for people who have had an ICU stay to be unwell for some time afterwards. The risk of ICU admission for Covid was higher than for influenza, but it is important to understand how much of the cardiovascular risk resulted from the virus and how much from the stay in intensive care per se. How do these Covid ICU patients compare to other ICU patients? The paper did not say.
Similarly the paper makes no attempt to unpick how many of the Covid patients tested positive only after being admitted to hospital. If, as in other studies, a significant proportion acquired Covid in hospital, then a higher risk of being diagnosed with other conditions would be highly likely.
Having failed to examine the above two questions – how much cardiovascular disease was a confounder of hospital transmission and how much is secondary to ICU harm – the overall risk of consequent cardiovascular problems included all the above cardiovascular conditions and thereby inflated the average for the Covid population as a whole.
Nature has published this paper which presents data in an obtuse way that should never have passed peer review. The results were presented as showing how dangerous the Covid virus was for cardiovascular complications without suitable controls to enable that conclusion to be drawn. The evidence on vaccination risks was hidden and not presented in a meaningful way for different age groups. Even then, they demonstrated a significant risk of myocarditis after vaccination, particularly after then encountering the virus but this key finding was hidden in the supplementary appendix. Why?
Dr. Clare Craig is a Diagnostic Pathologist and Co-Chair of HART.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Nothing new there, then….
It’s called the ‘Drosten approval process’
“Hiding crime”?
It’s in their nature?
Have doctors blindly become foot soldiers of the global elite?
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/we-must-purge-the-globalist-parasites-hijacking-our-health/
Neville Hodgkinson
Let’s keep getting the message out
Thursday 10th February 5pm
Silent lighted walk behind one simple sign
“No More Lockdown & Covid Rules Are Barking”
Bring torches, candles and other lights
meet outside Town Hall, between Rose Inn & Costa
Wokingham RG40 1AP
Stand in the Park Sundays 10am make friends, ignore the madness & keep sane
Wokingham Howard Palmer Gardens Cockpit Path car park Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Henley Mills Meadows (at the bandstand) Henley-on-Thames RG9 1DS
Telegram Group
http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Thanks for this excellent take of the article.Prof Balloux has been an excellent person in discussing the pandemic in general.But when he discusses vaccines, all questioning,concerns are gone and he behaves like a salesperson for Pfizer.
In this twitter thread about this study he is implying vaccines saves lifes also future lifes by reducing cardiovascular diesease quoting the above article.
https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1490915530714542081
And hidden within that thread we see an emerging consensus that the sudden uptick in heart attacks among otherwise healthy individuals and sudden deaths are due to past Covid infection.
https://m.independent.ie/regionals/wexford/news/it-was-a-pleasure-to-have-had-him-for-the-19-years-we-did-familys-tribute-following-tragic-death-of-footballer-conall-41327427.html
We always knew this would be the out for them.
I was confused for a second, I thought Appendix was that useless piece of intestine we all have.
That organ, although vestigial, is usually present, unless surgically removed. The piece of intestine, which is frequently not present in persons such as Politicians, is colloquially known as “Guts”, and is often found missing in another condition called “Spinelessness”.
One of the best comments I read in a long while!
That’s very good; have a star.
Great comment, but have look at an ex England football star(is that an oxymoron?)Matt Letiseur (?), for an interesting take on fit young men falling down.
My dear sir, do not mock the football prowess of Le Tiss. He was a grand player. Naturally his perceptive questioning of the wisdom of COVID jabs reminds me of the delicate skill with which he could blewter a free kick past the ‘keeper.
I thought it meant that as well! Derr…
Well, they are mentioning organs, easy for the brain to make that connection…
Although you can clearly live without your appendix, it is not a useless piece of intestine. It forms part of your immune system.
“serious biases….” in a Nature paper? No, shurely shum mishtake.
News at 11.
Bloke we knew way back, after a huge argument with him re AGW, backed up his arguments stating “I read Nature”. My wife and I fell about laughing. He was not amused.
Well it’s ‘all over now’, isn’t it, so who is going to care about this?
Might as well reveal the existence of UFOs while they’re at it.
“They think it’s all over”. A big shock on the way for some.
Johnson has deployed The End to save his skin.
If it’s really the end, does it render all ‘conspiracies’ invalid?
How long would you wait to accept it as the real deal end point, or which further criteria should be fulfilled?
N.B. A real End is also a huge gaslighting exercise, masquerading as a victory.
Yes, gaslighting is in full swing and of course they don’t want it to end. We are merely in a lull while they regroup. Another fake variant or something different (ebola?) will be needed as cover for the ongoing jab caused carnage.
You might not be far from the truth.
Meanwhile, photos of Johnson emerge quaffing Champagne while attending one of the parties he didn’t know he attended!
Must get our priorities right in this Land of Fools!
Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
I wish, I wish he’d go away.
Evil b@stards tying themselves in fekin knots in an attempt to cover up the absolutely bleeding obvious! The “vax” ticking time bomb will not be denied, wake up sheep, you’ve been deliberately poisoned…
Ahem….
The authors themselves suggest that the heart issues might be an autoimmune or aberrant persistent hyperactivated immune response.
But if this is the case then there will likely be an increased risk of heart-related problems after each infection — and in the vaccinated there is a significant immune response, equal to or in excess of the immune response found in those hospitalised as a result of covid (people that aren’t hospitalised have a smaller immune response). Thus if the heart-related issues are a consequence of immune dysfunction, then it might be expected that there would be higher risks on reinfection in the vaccinated. This isn’t fanciful analysis — it is just taking the risks that they state and inferring the consequences.
Yet their compensation as a result of vaccination only considered the time period immediately after vaccination as the risk period. This seems like a very odd restriction if they think it might be an immune dysfunction problem.
As a result they have co-mingled the vaccinated and unvaccinated data, and their ‘remove the risk of vaccination’ will have done no such thing.
What a weird way to do the analysis — they could have just done all the analysis by vaccination status and done away with the need for the weirdness.
But why when they can baffle the readers into believing them.
Let me fix that for you…
“What a
weirdfraudulent way to do the analysis”Jeez, I thought the headline meant ‘the’ appendix, and I thought I’d be ok then as I’ve had mine removed ….
Yet more gerrymandered “findings” and “research”. The total lack of truth and objectivity, combined with twisting the data to suit a predefined conclusion (a bit like “modelling”) might lead a cynic like me to suppose that there are motives and influences at play here other than the pursuit of Science and a desire to find causes and effects.
Perish the thought, but could they include money, obedience to some other authority and a fear of deviating from “The Narrative”?
We will not forgive. We will not forget. We have you all on record. (Part One)
https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/01/24/we-will-not-forgive-or-forget-we-have-you-on-record-part-one/
I’m convinced that this is only the beginning. I have listened to a few eminently qualified microbiologists explain how the Pfizer drug interferes with the human cancer ‘suppressor’ gene. Might be the explanation for the sudden rise in cancers.
https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/10/2056/htm
SARS–CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS–CoV–2) has led to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID–19) pandemic, severely affecting public health and the global economy. Adaptive immunity plays a crucial role in fighting against SARS–CoV–2 infection and directly influences the clinical outcomes of patients. Clinical studies have indicated that patients with severe COVID–19 exhibit delayed and weak adaptive immune responses; however, the mechanism by which SARS–CoV–2 impedes adaptive immunity remains unclear. Here, by using an in vitro cell line, we report that the SARS–CoV–2 spike protein significantly inhibits DNA damage repair, which is required for effective V(D)J recombination in adaptive immunity. Mechanistically, we found that the spike protein localizes in the nucleus and inhibits DNA damage repair by impeding key DNA repair protein BRCA1 and 53BP1 recruitment to the damage site. Our findings reveal a potential molecular mechanism by which the spike protein might impede adaptive immunity and underscore the potential side effects of full-length spike-based vaccines.
Pfizer knows that the shit is heading out the closet door… and the fan is waiting….
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/pfizer-quietly-adds-language-warning-unfavorable-pre-clinical-clinical-or-safety-data-may
It may be that Pfizer will become the scapegoat for all the “vaccine” producers. At the moment, it appears to be the most vulnerable.
.
Please god it can’t come to an end now
Prof Ferguson promised us 800 covid deaths in our village and we haven’t had a single covid death yet
This is not fair
Doesn’t feel like we’ve been allowed to play our part and now they are calling the bloody thing off
Is there someone I can complain to?, an Office for Covid Responsibility or something similar?
Had you considered the Office of Unfulfilled Fatalities?
Contact the omicrombudsman.
Any study can be done to achieve the end result you want.
This is yet another highly biased one to show how wonderful the experimental jabs are and how horrible the consequences for those silly people who don’t get jabbed.
We have to be thankful to Dr. Clare Craig and all the other contributors to The Daily Sceptic who expose the lies.
”BS baffles brains”, I must admit it was impossible to finish this if I wanted to stay alive.
What was the question again?
The Vaccine Effects Edition PART 1/2: Explains the MORTALITY “MAGICK”! (odysee.com)
The Vaccine Effects Edition PART 2/2: Explains the ICU “MAGICK”! (odysee.com)
How to misrepresent data and influence people.
For those whose friends and relatives have deserted them.
Dear Complier, you can mock and throw angry names and I will still fight for your freedom « JoNova (joannenova.com.au)
Dear Complier,
We’ve met, but you probably don’t recognise me. You may remember referring to me as a “conspiracy theorist”, “racist”, “sexist”, “bigot”, or “anti-vaxxer”, but in fact I am none of the above, and much more to you than you realise. I am your friend, family member, colleague, lover, acquaintance and neighbour. I am everywhere, but I don’t self-righteously disclose where exactly.
You’re wearing a mask so I can’t see the scorn set on your lips, or even your smile (if it’s there). Your eyes are visible, but in them I see only compliance, fear, shame and defeat. I don’t judge you, as I know you are a victim. You have been efficiently conditioned, the result of which has left you stripped bare of self-confidence, dignity, power and compassion.
Your only strength is to attack those unwilling to join you in obedience. It’s okay – I don’t feel mad – I feel sad for you. I will allow you to direct your fear at me and I will accept it, because the battle I am fighting is for you as well as me. It’s for your children and grandchildren, as well as mine.
You and I both had a choice to make, and I decided to fight for freedom. You submitted instantly, and attempted to shame, intimidate and coerce me into the same, becoming outraged at my independence and my belief in “my body, my choice”. You disagree with my striving for a fair and just society, free from fraud and deception. You call me a “fascist” for arguing against government overreach. Do you see this irony?
While you continue to angrily comply, to follow those who have continuously lied to you, I will continue to push back. I will continue to value my autonomy and I will use my strength to free us both from the path you are blindly walking down.
One day you will see how much your compliance almost cost us, and hopefully you will see that I was never your enemy. I look forward to this day, and I will celebrate it with you. Until then, I will be here propping you up and preventing you from falling, anonymously of course.
Sincerely, Anon.
Of course they are !
Isn’t this the whole idea?
Nature has published this paper which presents data in an obtuse way that should never have passed peer review.
I’m so old that I can remember when Nature was a journal of very high repute.
Before it was ‘bought out’ by you know who?
On a similar theme.
quote “One very real hypothesis is that the substitution of pseudouridine for uridine to avoid the immune response is working so well that the mRNA is completely evading the normal clearance/degradation pathways. Hence, mRNA that is not being incorporated into cells at the injection site, is migrating to the lymph nodes (and throughout the body as the non-clinical Pfizer data suggest?) and continuing to express protein there. In this case, the cytotoxic protein antigen is spike. Spike protein can be detected for at least 60 days after administration of dose. Note that the duration of the protein expression was only tested for 60 days.”
Link – Robert Malone – Vaccine spike antigen and mRNA persist for two months in lymph node germinal centers… protein production of spike is higher than those of severely ill COVID-19 patients!
Pure poison…..and this is all deliberate. So where are the Police?
THEY KNOW
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/revoking-vaccination-as-a-condition-of-deployment-across-all-health-and-social-care
This is the consultation document for the NHS vax mandates. It has only @ five questions and takes five minutes to do.
Deadline 16 Feb, so hurry
This has probably been decided already but hopefully the responses will make it more difficult to try again when there is a new 1000% effective vaccine.
One question asked if there was anything more the government could do to encourage vaccination. I was tempted to click yes to see if I was asked for my suggestions but I thought saying a full social credit system and einsatzgruppen might not be helpful and might nudge the Austrians
Interestingly the online consultation is already biased in the first question with the statement regarding “vaccine hesitance”
Claire Craig, you are amazing. Thank you!
Ditto. Many thanks for all you work and courage Claire.
I’m a sort of twitter lurker – read but never post, and I always appreciate your account. My guess is that there are many, many people out there who silently appreciate the work you, and other honest professionals like you, are doing.
In the end, The Truth is the only place worth going.
MSM is trying to make fun of people wanting to protect themselves with cheap and proven drugs. Ivermectin has been FDA approved for human use since 1996. It also beats Pfizer’s new wonder drug hands down, and costs next to nothing. Ivermectin doesn’t make tons of money. So they know the Covid shot is on its final gasp, so they take it add something different to it, rebrand under another name and charge 20 times what they would for ivermectin. I cannot wrap my head around this nonsense. When I explain this to my relatives they label me as crazy and ask me if I know better than science. I don’t make up these information out of my ass. All this information is true and proven. For some people it is near impossible for them to wake up. They are comfortable in their clown world life. If you want to get Ivermectin you can visit https://ivmpharmacy.com
Israeli news sources have now concluded that the Covid jabs cause a 133x risk of myocarditis without actually preventing infections from Covid.
What a surprise to discover the eminent scientist Unballanced behind this!
And they still want to vaccinate five Year olds and babies , with a fake vaccine that cannot stop transmission or stop you getting ill , how many will you have to travel boosters every year , in Israel it worked out so well didn’t it 90 percent in Hospital triple and double jabbed.
If we do not have capital punishment for the people who have foisted this on the world, what is to stop them from doing it again?
I suggest 40 years with no parole. For those aged under 35, possibly make it 45 or 50 years.
N.B. This is a much longer sentence than normal ‘life imprisonment’ for which one gets early release for good behaviour.
Also we should exact a civil penalty which renders them bankrupt. They won’t be needing their house and bank account contents when they’re inside.
Kristen Nagle shames CBC workers in the streets of Ottawa. CBC people have no heart. This is a must watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYMDi3HrrDg&ab_channel=MarcelIrnie
https://kanekoa.substack.com/p/was-peter-daszak-working-for-the
Was Peter Daszak Working For The Central Intelligence Agency?
An EcoHealth Alliance whistleblower steps forward
EcoHealth Alliance received the majority of its funding from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), a State Department subsidiary that serves as a frequent cover for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Their second largest source of funding was from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), which is a branch of the Department of Defense (DOD) which states it is tasked to “counter and deter weapons of mass destruction and improvised threat networks.”
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has a long history of acting as a contract vehicle for various CIA covert activities.
Great work. I’m so glad that we average clinicians don’t have to get our heads around statistics so thank you for taking the time to delve into this quagmire of obfuscation.
One thing strikes me. You mention that the “risk of ICU admission was higher for Covid than for influenza”. Since the CDC decided last summer that the Drossten test was not able to differentiate between the two and should no longer be used for diagnosis, how do you suppose that hospitals are determining their diagnosis? Is there a foolproof test for Covid 19 or are we relying on what must surely be a very subjective “diagnosis” performed by the admitting staff.
As a hay fever sufferer with (probably) facemask-wearing induced nasal polyps I am always amused when anosmia is trumpeted as one of the main determining symptoms of Covid infection.
Simply test for d-dimers and inflammatory protein markers as measured by the PULS test in those who have had the vaccine, those non-vaccinated but infected with Covid and compare. Peter McCullough will be vindicated.
We peered over the author’s shoulder for a bit and said, “Reviewed!”
Then we went for a drink and had a good laugh about it.
Have doctors blindly become foot soldiers of the global elite?
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/we-must-purge-the-globalist-parasites-hijacking-our-health/
Neville Hodgkinson
Let’s keep getting the message out
Thursday 10th February 5pm
Silent lighted walk behind one simple sign
“No More Lockdown & Covid Rules Are Barking”
Bring torches, candles and other lights
meet outside Town Hall, between Rose Inn & Costa
Wokingham RG40 1AP
Stand in the Park Sundays 10am make friends, ignore the madness & keep sane
Wokingham Howard Palmer Gardens Cockpit Path car park Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Henley Mills Meadows (at the bandstand) Henley-on-Thames RG9 1DS
Telegram Group
http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
They seem to be looking for any reason, however ridiculous, to explain why heart problems are rising dramatically, particularly in young people. We all know the reason this is happening!!