New Study Claims Covid Jabs Reduce Blood Clots. Nope!
The Truth Is Hiding in the Details
A few days ago, Medscape UK1 brought out a summary of a study2 that claims the Covid jabs reduce arterial and venous thrombosis such as heart attacks, strokes, pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis as well as some other blockages of blood vessels. Medscape is a free online “news”letter for medical professionals that promotes allopathic medicine, big pharma and belittles all criticism of this kind of pharma driven medicine.
The study states that they compared the occurrence of such thrombotic events in 45.7 million people in the UK between the unjabbed and jabbed, divided into first and second dose and a booster. They relied on medical health records from December 8th, 2020, to January 2022. They accessed records encompassing primary care, hospital admissions, COVID-19 testing and vaccination data, dispensed medication records in primary care data, and the Office of National Statistics death registrations.
The study claims they compared unjabbed to the jabbed, but they vaguely state that people who received a jab before December 8th, 2020, were also included and thrown into the unjabbed group.
Their conclusion is based on the estimated adjusted hazard ratio (aHR). A good definition of this aHR is: A measure of how often a particular event happens in one group compared to how often it happens in another group, over time. The numbers of the aHR seem to show that the jabbed had less thrombotic events.
Digging into supplemental information though shows a different picture. Tables 3-7 in this supplemental information3 show that the unjabbed (including those jabbed before the study began) were compared to the ones jabbed with the first dose. The table shows the incidence of the various clotting events. In medicine, the incidence is commonly the number of newly identified cases of a disease or condition per population at risk over a specified time frame. Thus, Incidence= (New Cases) / (Population x Time frame)4. For example, in the so called unjabbed group there were 37915 heart attacks, divided by 205 person years giving an incidence of 184.95. Person years is used as the cumulative time all persons were under observation in the study. Since not all people were under observation for the same length of time because they either entered the study later than December 8th, 2020, or exited earlier than January 2022, the times of each person under observation are added up and give the person-years. Compared to the incidence of 184.95 in the unjabbed, the people who had one jab had an incidence of 392.97. This means the ones jabbed with the first dose actually had a higher incidence of heart attacks than the unjabbed. And so it continues with other events:
Look at the incidence rates columns on the right of the table and compare the numbers between the unjabbed and the jabbed. They go up for almost all events, particularly for the jabs from Astra Zeneca (ChAdOx1) and Pfizer (BNT-162b2 ) and to a large extent for Moderna (mRNA1273).
But it gets better. The next table defines what is meant by the groups they compared to each other, and it shows that the unjabbed received the first dose and were then compared with the ones who had received the second dose. So, they are now comparing jabbed with jabbed. Then they got the second jab and were compared to the ones who were boosted.
Let’s go back to the prior table showing the incidence rate. It now compares the incidence rates of the one time jabbed with the rate of the twice jabbed. We note that the incidences of events go down after the second dose.
Comparing thrombotic events in people who got the first jab with people who got the second jab.
Lastly, they compare the ones jabbed with the first and second dose with the boosted. The incidence of events goes up.
Comparing thrombotic events in people who got the first two jabs with people who got the booster.
Let’s compare the incidence of the unjabbed (though some may have had a jab before December 8th, 2020) with the incidence of the boosted: Heart attack unjabbed: 184.95 versus in the boosted: 505.18. Incidence of Strokes in the unjabbed: 179.12 versus the boosted: 515.15.
The exorbitant numbers of excess deaths, the very visual sudden deaths all over the planet and the reports by embalmers who have to take care of record amounts of dead people, pulling rubber clots out from their veins confirm that the incidence of clotting events in the jabbed are through the roof. This website went through the trouble to list and link 1000 studies showing the dangers of these jabs:
https://healthglade.com/over-1000-scientific-studies-prove-that-the-covid-vaccines-are-extremely-dangerous/
Another critique is that the observation period of 26 weeks was too short. The observation time after the booster was only about 14 weeks. It takes time for the damage to lead up to the final clotting event, often beyond 10 months after the last jab as the example of a rubber clot Dr Kory from 26 year old healthy NYC police officer shows5. He died of a massive heart attack 10 months after the jab.
Lastly the study claims that the unjabbed have higher incidences of events (as we now saw, they do NOT) because Covid infection causes these events. As I have written in past Substacks, there was no SarsCoV2- infection as there is no evidence that a virus ever existed, and diagnoses were based on a useless PCR test.
It’s uncanny how so-called scientists who write up these study papers get away with such lies. Some of the same people who wrote up this study published a very similar one in 20226. In that study too they claimed the jab protects from such thrombotic events and the incidence rates clearly show that the opposite is true. It shows how important it is to go through the studies with a fine tooth comb.
Sources
2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-49634-x#MOESM1
4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430746/
5. https://x.com/r_hirschman/status/1706768813130428815
6. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003926#pmed.1003926.s001
I hope one day soon these people that are responsible for this Evil are held accountable
Dear Doctor Baxas,
Thank you for all you are doing!! I so appreciate it as just a normal layperson seeking to understand the truth of our current times. Recently I’ve been delving deep into the study of terrain theory and the no virus existence claims. I feel very strongly that viruses don’t exist, but that the effects misappropriated to the concept of viruses is merely the effects on the human body of toxins and / or poisons. On such a note I’ve also been looking into the sv40 sequence found in the Covid shots and a recent video by Dr Sam Bailey regarding SV40 also not being a simian virus but instead a toxic brew derived from monkey kidney cells. Which then led me to a book called ‘Dr Mary’s Monkey’ about the history of the doctor from the 1960’s who was involved in the first experiments with monkeys and finding what was then called the simian virus from monkey kidney cell lines. I’m curious if you’ve read this book? And your thoughts on sv40 whether it’s improperly been labeled a virus while being nothing more than a toxic brew that uses monkey kidney cells as its base?