A bombshell new study from leading American experts has declared that Moderna’s Covid mRNA “vaccine” is considered dangerous for men aged between 18 and 64 years old.
The group of accomplished mathematicians, epidemiologists, and medical professionals determined that the health risks from the injections far outweigh the benefits for most men.
The team of researchers, led by University of Virginia Mathematics Professor Dr. Paul S. Bourdon, PhD, sought to review a risk-based decision by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) involving the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by Moderna Inc.
Dr. Bourdon’s team of elite researchers also includes:
- Dr. Ram Duriseti, MD, PhD, Clinical Associate, Stanford Medicine
- Dr. Christian Gromoll, PhD, Associate Professor of Mathematics, University of Virginia
- Dr. Dyana K. Dalton, Independent genetics-immunology researcher
- Dr. Kevin Bardosh, PhD, Affiliate Assistant Professor, University of Washington, School of Public Health
- Dr. Allison E. Krug, MPH, Epidemiologist
In the early days of the pandemic, the FDA conducted a benefit-risk assessment addressing the “vaccine” product known as mRNA-1273 (Spikevax).
The assessment was conducted prior to the mRNA injection’s full approval and was announced on January 31, 2022.
This FDA’s assessment focused on males ages 18-64 years because the agency’s risk analysis was limited to vaccine-attributable myocarditis/pericarditis (VAM/P).
Both myocarditis and pericarditis are forms of heart inflammation that can cause blood clots, cardiac arrest, strokes, and sudden death.
The mRNA injections have been linked to an excess risk of myocarditis and pericarditis among males.
However, the agency’s analysis came to the conclusion that the benefits of the mRNA shots clearly outweighed the risks, even in the 18-25-year-old male cohort – a group facing higher VAM/P risk.
This latest study from Dr. Bourdon’s team reanalyzed the FDA benefit-risk assessment in the same age and sex cohort, based on information available by the third week of January 2022.
Although the output is not yet peer-reviewed, the risk associated with these bombshell findings should prompt what should be an immediate review by the FDA and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Moderna stock dropped this week when the explosive study was published.
The researchers employed the same analytical framework as the FDA,
However, they extended the model by accounting for protection derived from prior Covid infection, finer age stratification in Covid hospitalization rates, and incidental hospitalizations (patients who test positive for Covid while being treated for something else).
The extended model used by Dr. Bourdon’s team brings more real-world rigor to the FDA model.
The latest analysis employed more realistic projections of Omicron-infection rates and more accurate rates of VAM/P given we have more data now to work with such models.
The researchers came to a bombshell conclusion with the primary endpoint of hospitalization (those prevented by vaccination vs. those caused by VAM/P).
Their findings uncovered an alarming net harm:
“Vaccine risks outweighed benefits for 18-25-year-old males, except in scenarios projecting implausibly high Omicron-infection prevalence.”
Essentially, their findings revealed that more young men were hospitalized with vaccine-induced heart damage than hospitalizations for Covid were prevented by the injections.
When associating the projections of the FDA’s “most likely scenario” to the present hardened model based on updated data, the authors write:
“We find that the FDA’s benefit-risk ratio, 43.33, is over 60 times more favorable than ours, 0.67.”
The vaccination of 18-25-year-old males generated between 16% and 63% more hospitalizations from vaccine-attributable myocarditis/pericarditis alone compared to Covid hospitalizations prevented, the study found.
This is a bombshell finding that obviously must be peer-reviewed and disseminated within the scientific and medical community.
Even more disturbingly, the preceding assessment draws on assumptions derived from data available before 1/22/22.
The team declares that their assumptions are validated by ensuing available data.
These troubling findings come after another recent study made a similar conclusion.
As THAIMBC News recently reported, the study, led by Drs. Johannes D Knapp and Aditi Bhargava, PhD, found that hospitals treated far more people for mRNA “vaccine” adverse events than unvaccinated patients with Covid infections.
The study was conducted by researchers affiliated with the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and data firm Aseesa Inc.
The researchers sought to investigate the differences in COVID-19 outcomes based on gender.
However, the study found that the mRNA vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna led to a higher adverse event rate than COVID-19 itself as measured by hospitalization.
Specifically, hospitals treated mRNA vaccine-injured people at a rate 3.8X higher than unvaccinated patients with Covid infections.
