The legacy media can't quit you, mRNA

Yet another flawed paper about Covid shots gets the white-glove treatment because it gives the Washington Post a chance to write a false pro-vaccine headline - not just misleading, false!

I am so tired of having to fact-check legacy media lies about the mRNA shots.

But they won’t stop, so I can’t.

On Monday, scientists released a paper claiming Covid booster jabs might reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes by 7 percent. The findings come from observational real-world data, not a randomized clinical trial. In such studies, small risk differences must be viewed with extreme skepticism.¹

And that’s just what the Washington Post did!

Kidding, bro. Instead, the Post hyped the paper — and ran a headline that was not merely misleading but untrue:

“Covid vaccine linked to broad protections against heart conditions, study finds

A new study finds the vaccine was linked with nearly 40 percent lower risk of events like heart attack and stroke”

Nope. It wasn’t.

The reduction was (under) 7 percent, not “nearly 40 percent.”

—

(See for yourself. The key figures are in the first column, under “vaccine effectiveness” - 6.2 percent, 6.6 percent, and 7.1 percent.)

SOURCE

—

In fact, the nearly 40 percent risk reduction figure the Post hyped comes from a separate estimate of reductions in “Covid-associated” heart attacks and strokes the researchers made.²

There’s only one problem. Those “Covid-associated” cardiovascular problems made up a tiny fraction of the overall heart crises people in the study suffered — barely 1 percent.

Covid is just not very dangerous anymore. So even if Covid jabs do reduce Covid-associated heart attacks and strokes — which this study does not prove — they will do little to improve to overall health.

The paper says so explicitly, saying “the absolute risk differences were modest” and estimating that 5,000 booster shots would need to be given to prevent one Covid-associated cardiac event.

Of course, you will be unsurprised to hear the study says nothing — not one word — about potential side effects, either short- or long-term, of the shots.

—

(They can’t stop lying, so I can’t stop telling the truth. Help me.)

Or try a one-time donation!

—

So here we are.

Five years after the first catastrophic failure of the mRNA jabs, legacy media outlets are still using falsehoods to push the shots on a population that neither wants nor needs them.

The only thing they’re reducing is their own credibility.

—

(Why you gotta make stuff up like that, Washington Post? Why?)

1. Observational studies are inevitably flawed. No matter how hard researchers try to fix them, they simply can never fully correct the data they have to account for hidden differences between people who choose to take a Covid vaccine and those who do not. Only prospectively randomized trials can eliminate those hidden differences.

2. To produce both estimates, the researchers compared heart attacks and other cardiovascular outcomes in 350,000 veterans who received Covid and flu shots in late 2024 with 690,000 who received flu jabs alone.