Study of 86 Million: Risk of Heart Attack, Strok…

A massive new meta-analysis is sending shockwaves through the scientific community and raising urgent red flags for public health officials.

A staggering 86 million-person study has found a dramatic increase in the risks of stroke, heart attack, coronary artery disease, and arrhythmia following Covid “vaccination” with mRNA and viral vector injections.

Researchers found:

  • Stroke risk increased by 240% after the first dose
  • Heart attacks surged by 286% after the second dose
  • Coronary artery disease jumped by 244% after the second dose
  • Arrhythmia spiked by 199% after the first dose

The study was conducted by Raheleh Karimi and colleagues from the School of Health at Isfahan University of Medical Sciences in Iran.

A comprehensive Bayesian multivariate meta-analysis was conducted alongside other top Iranian academic centers.

The results of the study were published in the National Library of Medicine.

The researcher found that Covid “vaccines” are significantly associated with increased risks of major cardiovascular events.

The study reviewed 15 peer-reviewed papers, 11 of which compared vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, and six that directly compared the two leading mRNA vaccines: Pfizer (BNT162b2) and Moderna (mRNA-1273).

The vaccinated group included over 46 million individuals, while the control group comprised nearly 40 million.

This wasn’t an average epidemiological study, however.

The researchers employed Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) modeling to account for dose type, “vaccine” brand, and regional effects, allowing for robust cross-comparison of interrelated cardiovascular outcomes.

Among the most disturbing findings:

Coronary artery disease (CAD) showed a 70% higher odds post-vaccination (OR 1.70; CrI: 1.11–2.57).

The second dose of Pfizer was associated with:

  • Heart Attack (MI): OR 3.84 (CrI: 2.21–6.66)
  • Coronary Artery Disease: OR 2.98 (CrI: 1.64–5.37)

The first dose of Pfizer was linked to:

  • Stroke: OR 3.69 (CrI: 2.13–6.37)
  • Arrhythmia: OR 2.99 (CrI: 1.20–7.44)

First dose of AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) showed:

  • Arrhythmia risk: OR 4.89 (CrI: 1.21–19.38)

The authors note that more data is needed to confirm these apparent protective effects.

Renowned McCullough Foundation epidemiologist Nicolas Hulsher is sounding the alarm after reviewing the study.

“This large-scale analysis of over 85 million individuals shows that COVID-19 vaccines are associated with significantly increased risks of stroke, heart attack, coronary artery disease, and arrhythmia,” Hulscher noted.

“Pfizer’s mRNA injections (BNT162b2) were specifically linked to substantial increases in stroke, myocardial infarction, and coronary artery disease, particularly following the first and second doses.

“Arrhythmia risk was elevated following the first dose of any vaccine, with the strongest signal observed after AstraZeneca’s ChAdOx1.”

Hulscher also weighed in on the findings during a new interview with Brannon Howse on Worldview Radio.

WATCH:

This is not an isolated study, however.

It adds to a growing pile of evidence that has linked mRNA vaccines with myocarditis, pericarditis, clotting events, and neurological damage.

And now, we have large-scale confirmation of coronary artery disease and heart attack risks, data that authorities can no longer afford to ignore.

This analysis strengthens the case for what millions have been demanding for years: an immediate halt to the use of genetic Covid vaccines.

A growing number os experts is calling for the injections to be pulled pending independent safety investigations, open disclosure of trial data, and full transparency on adverse event tracking.

The time for silence is over as people are dying.

We’ve been told for years to “trust the science.”

This is the science, and it’s screaming for a reckoning.

READ MORE – Major Study: Covid Shots Are SOLE Cause of Child Heart Failure Surge

Views: 7
About Steve Allen 2334 Articles
My name is Steve Allen and I’m the publisher of ThinkAboutIt.online. Any controversial opinions in these articles are either mine alone or a guest author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the websites where my work is republished. These articles may contain opinions on political matters, but are not intended to promote the candidacy of any particular political candidate. The material contained herein is for general information purposes only. Commenters are solely responsible for their own viewpoints, and those viewpoints do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the operators of the websites where my work is republished. Follow me on social media on Facebook and X, and sharing these articles with others is a great help. Thank you, Steve

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.




This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.