Study claiming COVID vaccines protect heart health called “hopelessly flawed” by scientists
The study published in JAMA Internal Medicine claiming COVID-19 vaccines reduce heart attack and stroke risk is denounced as “hopelessly flawed” and “outright bad science” by experts, including Dr. Vinay Prasad, because it lacks a true unvaccinated control group and relies on observational data rather than a randomized controlled trial.
The core methodological flaw is that the study compared people who received only a flu shot against those who received both a flu shot and a COVID-19 vaccine, and, critically, some participants who later received a COVID-19 shot were still wrongly classified as “unvaccinated,” creating a massive “healthy vaccinee bias” that renders the conclusions unreliable.
Statistical anomalies, such as all-cause mortality curves separating within an “impossibly fast” 10 days, indicate the two study groups were not comparable from the start; the group receiving the extra COVID-19 booster was ostensibly healthier, meaning the observed benefits are attributable to pre-existing health differences, not the vaccine itself.
The raw, unadjusted data from the study actually showed a negative vaccine efficacy (meaning the vaccinated group had worse outcomes), but researchers used improper weighting methods to flip the results, skewing the data to falsely show a benefit for the vaccinated cohort.
According to critics like immunologist Jessica Rose, Ph.D., the paper was allowed to pass peer review to “pump out a false narrative,” a clear example of how corrupted medical literature is used to falsely promote dangerous mRNA shots while obscuring their documented link to heart damage, especially in young males.
Read Full Article: https://www.naturalnews.com/2026-06-30-study-covid-vaccines-protect-heart-health-hopelessly-flawed.html
