Largest COVID Shot Study Links Jab to Brain, Blood, and Heart Conditions. Should It Underscore the Call for a Global Moratorium?

by Annemarie McLean

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. That one may smile and smile and be a villain. — Shakespeare

The largest COVID-19 shot study ever conducted revealed higher than expected cases of neurological, hematologic, and cardiovascular conditions post-vaccination. Conducted by the Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN), the multinational cohort study, published in the Vaccine journal on February 12, evaluated over 99 million COVID-vaccinated individuals in eight nations to measure the risk of adverse events of special interest (AESI). The participating nations are Argentina, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, New Zealand, and Scotland.

The methodology for the retrospective observational study was straightforward: Using a common protocol, scientists compared and analyzed observed vs. expected outcomes for 13 selected AESI across neurological, hematological, and cardiac outcomes up to 42 days after vaccination.

Findings revealed that both Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA COVID shots along with AstraZeneca’s viral vector jab “confirmed pre-established safety signals for myocarditis, pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis [CVST].” In fact, researchers recorded 12 times when specific health conditions surpassed the safety signal threshold of >1.5 to indicate a potential harm or risk to a particular brand and dose of the COVID shot.

World-renowned researcher, cardiologist, and epidemiologist Dr. Peter McCullough implies in a post on X that the >1.5 threshold is not strict enough to protect against serious AESI risk to humans, writing, “Any relative risk >1.2 is worrisome — these risks are prohibitive for an ineffective vaccine.”

Digging into the data further, scientists reported a 2x increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome, an autoimmune disorder that attacks the body's peripheral nervous system, a 3.78x increased chance of swelling of the brain and spinal cord after the first dose of Moderna, and higher-than-expected cases of Bell’s palsy after the first dose of the Pfizer and Moderna shots.

Additionally, the risk of a brain-swelling and spinal cord-damaging condition called Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM) was 3.7x greater after the first dose of the Moderna shot. And for the Pfizer-BioNTech version? Researchers anticipated two instances of ADEM following vaccination but recorded seven.

“A safe vaccine would be indistinguishable from a placebo. Does this look safe to you?” commented Steve Kirsch, founder of Vaccine Research Safety Foundation, regarding the study’s findings. “They found clearly increased risk of the various AESI, but the end conclusion is that the risks after COVID infection are far higher, so people should take the shots. This is unbelievable.”

Coincidence or Confirmation?

The GVDN global cohort study was released less than three weeks after McCullough joined former NIH epidemiologist M. Nathaniel Mead, MIT Senior Research Scientist Stephanie Seneff, and four other expert researchers to co-author a peer-reviewed paper for The Cureus Journal of Medical Science, entitled “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign.”  The paper has since been retracted by Cureus (more on that later). Reanalyzing data from Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine trials, it was the first paper to call for a “global moratorium on modified mRNA products.”

In the paper, scientists found that COVID vaccine trials were rushed in a historically unprecedented manner while the “vaccines” themselves presented low efficacy, were contaminated with residual DNA impurities, and presented many “biological mechanisms” that could cause serious adverse events. The authors concluded that the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) gave a blanket thumbs-up for COVID mRNA shots that had no basis or support from an honest assessment of all relevant registrational data and proportionate consideration of risks vs. benefits.

Until Further Notice

McCullough went as far as to say that “mRNA should never have been authorized for human use.” He and his co-authors insist that a global moratorium is the appropriate action of governments given “the well-documented SAEs [serious adverse events] and unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio.”

They are not alone in their beliefs. Joining them is Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo, an outspoken critic of the mRNA vaccines and a prominent voice in calling out the FDA and the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) for their failures in due diligence and transparency when it comes COVID vaccine safety.

In a post on X on January 3, 2024, Dr. Ladapo wrote, “I am calling for a halt to the use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have always played it fast and loose with COVID vaccine safety, but their failure to test for DNA integration into the human genome –– as their own guidelines dictate –– when the vaccines are known to be contaminated with foreign DNA is intolerable.”

A few weeks later, on January 18, Ladapo held the CDC accountable for its lack of transparency by reposting an email the agency “failed to send” to alert the public on the dangers of myocarditis back in –– wait for it –– May 2021.

The newly published findings of 99+M cohort GVDN study simply reinforce and cement what Ladapo, McCullough, and Co. already knew: COVID vaccines carry a significant risk for myocarditis — so much so that Ladapo updated COVID vaccine guidance for Floridians back in the fall of 2022. Unfortunately, it’s a risk that continues to be downplayed by the COVID Cartel, headed up by the WHO (World Health Organization) and carried out in America by its three-letter federal agency lackeys.

And it’s not just myocarditis that’s being whitewashed in much of the forthcoming research. It’s pericarditis. It’s Bell’s palsy. It’s horrific conditions like Guillain-Barré, CVST, and ADEM, not to mention the research that reveals nucleic acid contaminants have been measured in various shot batches with yet-to-be-fully-understood implications for human health.

Trivialized and Retracted for Reporting Real Science?

The findings from the GVDN study have been outright trivialized by much of the scientific community, while, in an astonishing move of scientific censorship, Cureus flat-out retracted the Mead article 32 days after publishing it. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, for sure.

One fitting example of “trivializing” a new side effect discovered in the study — ADEM — can be found in Jacqui Wise’s explanation in British Medical Journal (BMJ) calling it both “rare” and “small.”

McCullough was having none of it. He replied on X, “Look for any relative risk, hazard ratio, odds ratio, or observed/expected risk >1.20 or upper bound of the 95% confidence limit >1.30. Those are clinically unacceptable risks for a mass market product. Not ‘small,’ or ‘rare’ as spun by Wise.”

As for the Cureus takedown, never mind that the paper in the web-based publication drew global attention to the platform with record views/reads/downloads, topping >330,000 in a month as compared to an average Cureus-promoted paper that has only ~2700 in a year. Ignore the fact that users gave it a >9.2 rating for clarity, scientific importance, study methods, novel conclusions, and data analysis –– deeming it “groundbreaking” in its findings.

While the collusion among some scientists, federal regulatory agencies, and much of the mainstream media continues to downplay, discount, and otherwise dismiss data of importance to the entire global COVID-vaccinated population, papers like the one retracted by Cureus are not shying away from a distinctly different narrative. It’s one that puts forth evidence that “for every life saved, there were nearly 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections.”

How much more research needs to come out to stop the shots?

Originally published in The Stream.