Another Ludicrous Study in Praise of Pfizer’s mRNA
Rarely does a study make me angry: This one infuriates me. Multiorgan Outcomes Following COVID-19 Vaccine vs Infection: 30M Analysis is quite a piece of work
Right from the start, we realize we are dealing with a document that almost certainly cannot be objective.
Why? Because one of the senior authors is a consultant and advisor for many industry sponsors of COVID vaccines – and has been compensated for his work on this study.
SJT was an investigator in the phase 3 trial of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine and has participated on data safety monitoring boards, independent data monitoring committees, and in consultative and advisory capacities for several industry sponsors of COVID-19 vaccines. He has been compensated for his time.
This is the study in question:
Multiorgan Outcomes Following COVID-19 Vaccine vs Infection: 30M Analysis https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.01.30.25343064v1.full
So, what, pray tell, could such an analysis possibly claim to prove? Will miracles never cease. We are to believe that after analyzing the records of THIRTY MILLION individuals we must conclude that:
SARS-CoV-2 infection confers substantially greater and sustained cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risk than mRNA vaccination, confirming a highly favorable benefit-risk profile for vaccination. These findings support extended cardiovascular surveillance after infection and targeted, risk-based vaccination strategies.
Utter. Absolute. Hogwash.
Let’s break it down. And toss it in the trash compactor.
First, when looking at the outcomes of infection, the eligible individuals included in the study were those with at least two health care encounters between December 2020 and December 2024.
Eligible individuals had documented biological sex, known race, and a minimum of two healthcare encounters between December 2020 and December 2024.
Why does this refute any claim that the vaccine is less dangerous than infection? Because the study does not make any identification of the COVID variant which caused adverse events.
In December of 2020 we still had the original strain circulating and the appearance of Alpha. Omicron did not appear until November 2021.
When we look at the CFRs, Omicron’s .04-.07 CFR rate compared to Alpha’s 2.6 and Beta’s 4.2, to make a claim that the vaccine “REDUCED” MORTALITY BY 77 percent is absurd, given that Omicron (roughly 3/4ths of the study’s duration) REDUCED MORTALITY BY VIRTUALLY 99 percent compared to Beta!!!
The wild-type virus had a CFR of 3.6 percent, with elevated rates in South America (5.5 percent), North America (4.8 percent), Asia (3.5 percent), and Europe (3.2 percent), while lower rates were seen in Africa (3.0 percent) and Oceania (1.8 percent).
The Alpha variant had a CFR of 2.6 percent (4.4 percent in Asia, 1.4 percent in Europe, and 2.7 percent in North America). CFRs during the Beta and Gamma periods were 4.2 and 3.6 percent, respectively. During Delta, the CFR was 2.0 percent, with rates in Africa, South America, North America, and Oceania of 3.5, 2.8, 2.5, and 2.1 percent, respectively, while Asia (1.5 percent) and Europe (1.1 percent) had below-average rates.
The researchers noted that the CFRs in Europe and North America during the Alpha period were lower than those during the wild-type period, while the opposite was seen in Asia. “A credible explanation for this was that European and North American countries had better monitoring and testing capacity of cases in the early stages of the epidemic, especially higher availability of identifying severe cases which resulted in more deaths attributed to COVID-19,” they wrote.
The CFR was lowest during the Omicron period (0.7 percent), with higher rates in Africa (1.7 percent) and Oceania (1.1 percent) and lower rates on other continents (less than one percent). By Omicron subvariant, CFRs were 1.0 percent for BA.1, 0.2 percent for BA.2, and 0.4 percent for BA.5.
Among SARS-CoV-2 variants, Beta had highest death rate, meta-analysis suggests https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/among-sars-cov-2-variants-beta-had-highest-death-rate-meta-analysis-suggests
I wonder what the results would be if we looked at December 2023 – December 2025…
Next, the study EXCLUDES the population of individuals that would be most vulnerable to the deleterious effects of the Spike Protein. UNBELIEVABLE.
We excluded patients with clinical trial enrollment; chromosomal abnormalities; major congenital heart disease; baseline known cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease; active/recent malignancy (<12 months); recent substance use disorders (<3 months); body mass index ≥40 kg/m2; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≥2; recent live vaccine receipt (<3 months); influenza infection or vaccination (<12 months); chronic hepatitis B or C; HIV; tuberculosis; or prior non-Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination (Table S1).
Lastly, we have the “minimum of two healthcare encounters” eligibility requirement. This is perhaps the most concerning problem with the study. If someone had a post-vaccination adverse event, including death of course, it wouldn’t be accounted for in the “reduced mortality” calculations unless they had had TWO HEALTHCARE ENCOUNTERS prior. DISGUSTING.
It is important to understand that I am not discounting the possible long term negative effects of either COVID infection or vaccination and their relation to adverse effects and mortality. This “study” only looked at nine months.
I certainly hope this “study” does not make peer review. But, of course, it will. Right?
See more here substack.com
Bold emphasis added
Header image: Getty Images