Official Study: ‘mRNA Vaccines Deadliest Ever Created’

A new preprint study by scientists from Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and the Brownstone Institute argues that serious safety risks tied to the Pfizer and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines were visible in early data but overlooked — or ignored — in major peer-reviewed studies that promoted the shots as safe.

The researchers contend these earlier studies were “biased by design,” raising troubling questions about transparency in vaccine safety research.

Naturalnews.com reports:

• The reanalysis showed that AstraZeneca’s vaccine carried markedly higher risks than Pfizer’s, including increased chances of heart attack (19%), ischemic stroke (24%), deep vein thrombosis (39%), pulmonary embolism (29%), intracranial venous thrombosis (265%), thrombocytopenia (180%), and brain hemorrhage (49%).
• Researchers criticized influential studies, such as a 2024 Nature Communications paper, for omitting critical data like mortality rates and for using adjustment methods that made vaccinated individuals appear healthier than unvaccinated ones — masking serious safety concerns.
• The authors concluded that misleading study designs led to false claims of “cardiovascular safety,” with evidence showing AstraZeneca caused widespread harm and Pfizer carried well-documented myocarditis risks, raising concerns about bias and accountability in top-tier medical research.

New look at old data shows COVID-19 vaccine dangers hiding in plain sight

Soon after the rollout of vaccines in 2020, large-scale studies in top journals such as Nature Communications, The Lancet, and The BMJ concluded the shots were effective and posed no major cardiovascular risks. Yet, over time, vaccine makers were forced to add warning labels for conditions like myocarditis and blood clotting — and AstraZeneca eventually withdrew its shot after acknowledging it could cause thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), a rare but deadly condition.

The new reanalysis, led by CHD senior scientist Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., along with Dr. Clayton J. Baker and Brian Hooker, Ph.D., revisited U.K. government datasets used in five major vaccine safety studies. Instead of comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated groups — the approach taken in the original research — the team directly compared outcomes between the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines. That shift revealed stark differences in safety profiles.

According to their findings, recipients of AstraZeneca’s non-mRNA vaccine faced dramatically higher risks of severe cardiovascular events compared to Pfizer’s mRNA shot, including:

• 19% higher risk of heart attack
• 24% higher risk of ischemic stroke
• 39% higher risk of deep vein thrombosis
• 29% higher risk of pulmonary embolism
• 265% higher risk of intracranial venous thrombosis (brain blood clots)
• 180% higher risk of thrombocytopenia (low platelets)
• 49% higher risk of brain hemorrhage

Pfizer’s shot, by contrast, carried a heightened risk of myocarditis and pericarditis — conditions already widely acknowledged.

Jablonowski emphasized that “mortality is the easiest number to count,” yet the widely cited Nature Communications paper failed to include it, even though other studies using the same datasets documented consistently higher death rates among AstraZeneca recipients. Instead, Oxford University researchers behind that paper concluded the vaccines were broadly safe and even “reassuring” — a finding read more than 160,000 times and influential in shaping global policy.

The reanalysis accuses the Oxford-led studies of employing data adjustment methods that obscured risks by making the vaccinated appear healthier than the unvaccinated. When outcomes were compared across vaccine types rather than against the unvaccinated, nine out of 13 health conditions examined showed significantly worse results for AstraZeneca.

Critics argue that these oversights had grave real-world consequences. By failing to disclose or emphasize comparative risks, earlier studies reinforced public confidence in a vaccine later linked to fatal complications. AstraZeneca officially withdrew its shot in 2024 but denied the decision was tied to safety issues.

The CHD and Brownstone researchers conclude that the misleading presentation of vaccine safety data illustrates systemic flaws in modern medical research. They argue that pressure to promote a narrative of “safety and effectiveness” led to biased study design, withholding of critical information, and erosion of public trust.