Jabagi et al.'s NEJM reporting on the French population after bivalent booster is misleading! McCullough clued me in (see his stack) & look at Table 1 (bivalent mRNA technology vax vs monovalent vax)
by Paul Alexander
Massive risk with the bivalent for myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, pulmonary embolism, hemorrhagic stroke, Table 1 has the real data, DO NOT be misled by author conclusion
Main finding: French citizens suffer cardiac events after bivalent boosters.
This study and interpretation is flawed for they compared bivalent to monovalent and not to placebo etc. These used composite end point reporting that is sub-optimal and importantly, there were near 440 serious effects from the COVID gene injection with heavy force from the bivalent shot. Moreover, if you read the conclusion, you would think that the Table 1 data did not exist and that the COVID shot was safe (and effective). Did researchers pretend the data in Table 1 did not exist? This is the same type of reporting we see time and again during COVID, where the actual reported data does not match the written conclusions.
Researchers via this population-based study, employed data ‘from the French National Health Data System linked to the national coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) vaccination database…
All persons who were 50 years of age or older and who had received a booster dose between October 6 and November 9, 2022, were included in the study. This time window captured the only period in which both vaccines were being administered in France…
Of a total of 470,962 vaccine recipients (mean [±SD] age, 72.6±10.4 years), 97,234 (20.6%) received the monovalent vaccine and 373,728 (79.4%) received the bivalent vaccine (Fig. S2 and Table S1). After inverse probability of treatment weighting, sociodemographic and health-status characteristics were well balanced between the two groups (Fig. S3)…’
At the 21 st day after the booster dose, researchers ‘found no evidence of an increased risk of cardiovascular events among the recipients of the bivalent vaccine as compared with recipients of the monovalent vaccine…
The evaluated events included ischemic stroke (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 1.27), hemorrhagic stroke (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.61), myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.36), pulmonary embolism (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.40), and all four events combined (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.09) (Table 1).’
Yet when we look at Table 1, we can see devastating cardiovascular and pulmonary type effects especially for the bivalent booster (yet tremendous numbers for the monovalent booster). These are very serious adverse effects and strongly implicates the vaccine. We can impose Bradford Hill’s criteria which supports likely causality e.g. temporality, biological plausibility etc.
Listed above in Table 1 are four categories of cardiovascular events that were recorded in the French National Health Data System and that occurred within 21 days after the receipt of either the Pfizer–BioNTech bivalent mRNA vaccine targeting both the ancestral and omicron BA.4–BA.5 sublineages of SARS-CoV-2 or the original monovalent vaccine. All the participants received their booster injection between October 6 and November 9, 2022.