Large VA COVID vaccine safety study done by Harvard researchers in 2022 shows statistically significant 36% higher risk of heart attack in people who took Pfizer
They didn't mention this anywhere in the paper itself. It was buried at the end of the 58 page supplement. I just found out about it when I read the paper.
Executive summary
Published in JAMA in June 13, 2022: Comparative Safety of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 Vaccines in a Nationwide Cohort of US Veterans | Vaccination | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network was . Dickerman and colleagues analyzed carefully matched data from 433 ,672 US veterans during 38 weeks of follow-up.
They found that the Pfizer vaccine, among other things, elevates your risk of heart attack by 36% [95% CI: 1.20 -1.53] compared to those who took the Moderna vaccine.
This is only seen on page 50 of a 58 page supplement (eTable 5).
From eTable 5
Neurologic and Hematologic events were very similar, which is a good indicator that the groups were otherwise well matched.
Here are the events of interest that they looked at that were elevated in the table along with the risk ratio (RR) numbers and 95% CI intervals:
Hemorrhagic stroke: 1.24 (0.72, 1.44)
Ischemic stroke: 1.18 (1.02, 1.28)
Myocardial infarction: 1.36 (1.20, 1.53)
Other thromboembolic: 1.24 (1.10, 1.38)
Myocarditis or pericarditis: 1.92 (1.00, 2.50)
Arrhythmia: 1.13 (1.02, 1.17)
Kidney injury: 1.21 (1.13, 1.35)
Pneumonia: 1.23 (1.12, 1.34)
So only 8 out of 14 adverse events were significantly elevated in Pfizer recipients.
You can’t get much safer than that, can you? (I’m being sarcastic)
Unbiased AI analysis of this paper
This unbiased AI analysis of this paper shows that they did not show the raw data and also chose to convey the results using absolute numbers rather than the more important relative risk numbers.
The AI analysis is a very interesting read; a case study on how to make unsafe vaccines look safe!
Grok’s take
According to Grok, the COVID shots decrease your risk of heart attack.
I asked my question because I don’t think any vaccine is worse than the COVID vaccine:
Summary
Safe vaccines don’t increase your risk of a heart attack by over 36%…. they just don’t.
You don’t need a medical degree to be able to state that.
Yet, no doctor in America will acknowledge the obvious because they’d lose their license if they did.
What makes this study very troubling is that this is a risk ratio between two deadly vaccines. I can pretty much guarantee you that neither COVID vaccine reduces your heart attack risk. Have you ever heard of a cardiologist who had less business after the COVID shots were introduced?
So it means your absolute risk increase of having a heart attack if you got the Pfizer vaccine is highly likely to be a lot higher than 36% because the comparison (Moderna) was likely unsafe as well.
How much higher than 36% is your risk increase? We don’t know because they keep the data secret so we are unlikely to be able to find out.
This is key
You cannot compare these rates to the full population because vaccinated patients are generally healthier.
But you absolutely can compare these rates with VA veterans opting for OTHER vaccines. People like Ziyad Al-Aly could access that data, but he’d never get such a study approved because that would answer the question once and for all. But why would anyone risk letting the truth get out when keeping the data hidden saves people from having to deal with the painful truth that the medical community recommended a kill shot? So we are never going to know.
It’s a shame that the mainstream media and mainstream medical community will bury this information and keep on recommending the shots and that the researchers who could surface the statistics we need to determine the absolute risk are not permitted to do so, isn’t it?
Yes yes so what. I read this study years ago. There are many such studies. The authors, once again, statistical illerates. Here's what I wrote about it when it came out:
This JAMA paper may look impressive because of its size, but the flaws are obvious once you scratch the surface. The population is almost entirely older men with heavy comorbidities, so the results don’t generalize. The authors treat vaccine choice as if it were randomized, but it was actually determined by clinic availability and preference. That means selection bias is baked in, and not fixable with the statistical matching they tried.
The outcomes are equally shaky. They rely entirely on billing codes in administrative records to define “adverse events,” which is notoriously unreliable for clinical detail. Their censoring scheme, cutting off follow-up once infection occurs, assumes infections were equally detected across groups, which is unlikely. And of course, statistical illiteracy rears its head with the sheer number of outcomes tested without correcting for multiple comparisons, and some of their “findings” are almost guaranteed to be statistical noise. What they actually show is that older sick men have lots of health events, not that one vaccine is clearly safer than the other.
I’m confused. Why would vaccinated patients be generally healthier? Is the implication that people who care about their health are more likely to get vaccinated? That certainly doesn’t apply to me. I refuse vaccination because i care about my health.