A Catastrophic Confirmation: New Study Links COVID-19 Vaccines to Serious Adverse Events

Authors likely underestimate the severity for some groups and find too few adverse events.

A Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) cohort study, analyzing 99 million vaccinated individuals across eight countries, has identified significantly elevated risks of neurological, hematological, and cardiovascular adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination.

The findings, drawn from post-vaccination surveillance data, reveal a disturbing pattern of serious injuries—many of which were known early on but dismissed as conspiracy theories. Using an observed vs. expected (OE) analysis, researchers compared real-world adverse event rates to pre-pandemic baseline rates. The results? Elevated risks, across multiple categories.

Key Findings: The Data They Can’t Ignore

Neurological Risks: Paralyzing Consequences

• Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS): A 2.5 times higher risk after the first dose of AstraZeneca’s ChAdOx1 vaccine (OE ratio: 2.49, 95% CI: 2.15–2.87).

• Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM): A rare but serious brain inflammation disorder showed a 3.78-fold increase following Moderna’s first dose (95% CI: 1.52–7.78).

• Bell’s Palsy & Seizures: Increased risk of facial paralysis and seizures, particularly after Moderna’s mRNA-1273 and Pfizer’s BNT162b2.

Hematological Risks: Clots That Kill

• Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis (CVST): A catastrophic clotting disorder with a 3.23-fold increased risk after AstraZeneca’s first dose (95% CI: 2.51–4.09).

• Thrombocytopenia & Immune Thrombocytopenia (ITP): Clotting-related disorders increased after AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna vaccines, with Moderna’s first dose showing the highest risk (OE ratio: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.25–1.42).

• Pulmonary Embolism: Blood clots in the lungs showed increased risks across all vaccines, raising concerns over deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and sudden cardiovascular collapse.

Cardiovascular Risks: The Heart of the Problem

• Myocarditis & Pericarditis: The strongest signals came after first, second, and third doses of mRNA vaccines:

  • Moderna’s second dose: 6.10-fold increased risk (95% CI: 5.52–6.72).

  • Pfizer & Moderna’s first and third doses: Confirming previously known risks, particularly in younger males.

• AstraZeneca’s third dose was linked to a massive 6.91-fold increased risk of pericarditis.

Reasonable Criticism: What This Study DIDN’T Address

While the study confirms many concerns, it is not without flaws.

1. Lack of Breakdown by Age & Sex

   • We already know that young males are disproportionately at risk for myocarditis and pericarditis, yet the study does not separate data by age group in its conclusions.

   • This dilutes the signal, possibly understating the real risks for those most affected.

2. Not a Comprehensive List of Adverse Events

   • The study only assessed 13 adverse events of special interest (AESI)—a fraction of the thousands of potential vaccine-induced conditions.

   • Conditions like autoimmune disorders, menstrual irregularities, cancers, and chronic inflammatory syndromes were not investigated.

3. Conflicts of Interest & Industry Influence

   • The study is funded by the CDC and government-affiliated institutions, many of which actively promoted mass vaccination and censored dissent.

   • The mere fact that serious risks were acknowledged at all is striking—suggesting the reality could be even worse than reported.

What This Means & Why It Matters

First, none of this should come as a surprise. The findings confirm long-standing safety concerns raised by researchers, physicians, and independent analysts—many of whom were silenced, censored, or ridiculed for simply demanding better risk assessment.

Second, this is not just a statistical anomaly—these are serious, life-altering, and potentially fatal conditions. A clot in the brain can leave you paralyzed or dead. A clot in the lungs can kill within minutes. A myocarditis-damaged heart may never fully recover.

They Should Have Listened

Public health officials once promised safe and effective vaccines, dismissing concerns over these very risks. Now, as the data accumulates, the pattern is undeniable. The real question is:

Will those who misled the public face accountability?

History has a way of vindicating those who spoke out early. Those voices should now be heard.

This study, for all its limitations, reinforces what independent researchers and medical professionals warned about years ago.

The science is clear. The risks are real. And the cost of ignoring these warnings has been paid in strokes, clots, heart failure, and lives lost.

Thrombosis—depending on where it occurs—can be catastrophic. The time for gaslighting is over. The only thing worse than ignoring early warnings is continuing to ignore the evidence now.

Note that some of the authors have been found in the past to have provided analyses of other vaccine-related issues based on entirely biased samples, which draws into question the unbiasedness of these science-like activities. (See JamesLyonsWeiler.com: An Autopsy on Hviid et al. 2019’s MMR/Vaccine Science-Like Activities)

Note that on this study, Vinay Prasad suggests using seroprevalence as the denominator within age group. I agree, but as he says: Don’t steal his idea!

Faksova, K., Walsh, D., Jiang, Y., Griffin, J., Phillips, A., Gentile, A., Kwong, J., Macartney, K., Naus, M., Grange, Z., Escolano, S., Sepulveda, G., Shetty, A., Pillsbury, A., Sullivan, C., Naveed, Z., Janjua, N., Giglio, N., Perälä, J., . . . Hviid, A. (2024). COVID-19 vaccines and adverse events of special interest: A multinational Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals. Vaccine, 42(9), 2200-2211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.01.100