NO matter how poor the science, provided the results support covid orthodoxy, Global Health NOW (GHN) will flag it up. And in the echo chamber that is the covid orthodox world, their sources are usually other newsletters with the same aim of maintaining the covid narrative which is surely long past its expiry date.
GHN recently provided a summary of an article in CIDRAP titled, ‘New research chips away at Covid-19 blood clot mystery’. CIDRAP, equally guilty of perpetuating the covid narrative, said, ‘Covid-19 can lead to blood clots, heart attack, and stroke because of the virus’s impact on proteins in blood vessels’.
The study from which this information came was published in the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA) and the study was conducted using United States data. The JAHA study shows a relationship between severity of covid and higher levels of covid RNA and an antigen associated with covid in the blood.
It is worth quoting at length from the CIDRAP article: “‘During the Covid-19 pandemic, hospitalised patients who weren’t sick enough to be in the intensive care unit would suffer heart attacks and strokes,’ said William T Bain, MD, a critical care pulmonologist at the University of Pittsburgh and the study’s senior author.
‘The deaths distressed and confounded clinicians, explained Bain. These patients didn’t seem to be in immediate danger. Occasionally, a heart attack or stroke happened in someone who appeared to be getting better, including those who seemed well enough to be sent home.
“This often affects younger populations, sort of in patients in their 40s and 50s,” he said.’
Does this pattern sound familiar? Without casting doubt on the results of the JAHA study, taken at face value, it is instructive to consider when the study was carried out and what they did not take into consideration.
The study was conducted using data generated between November 2020 and September 2021 from the ACTIV-4a clinical trial. The trial was to determine whether different intensities of anticoagulant treatment could improve outcomes in patients hospitalised with covid by reducing thrombosis and related complications.
Therefore, the study started only a month before the rollout of mRNA covid vaccines in the United States, which began in December 2020. This means that many participants in the study whose data were collected from December 2020 onwards will have taken the covid vaccines. This raises a key issue, which is not the biological findings themselves, but the variables the researchers chose not to examine.
Almost incredibly, while the data were adjusted for age and sex, vaccination status was not considered. Given that the study was a secondary analysis of blood composition from a sub-group of people participating in the ACTIV-4a clinical trial, data on vaccination status would have been easily available.
It is possible that all participants, having been hospitalised, had been covid vaccinated, in which case there would be no groups to compare on that basis. But that should have been stated. The blood clotting symptoms, and the death of three of the participants as a result, sound very like a well-known adverse effect of the covid vaccines.
It is also possible that the covid markers found in the blood of participants was a result of covid vaccination. Fragments of covid mRNA have been found in blood as a result of vaccination and, even if these fragments were not the result of vaccination, we now know from the intrepid work of Dr Clare Craig, that the covid vaccines were more, not less, likely to lead to covid infection.
There are alternative explanations for the blood clotting events observed in the participants with high covid markers in the blood and, in any case, the relationship may be spurious as they are linked to blood clotting by correlation. A causal link has not been established. However, a persistent feature of the covid orthodox narrative is a reluctance to investigate explanations that might implicate vaccination rather than infection alone. For many committed defenders of the covid orthodoxy, certain hypotheses appear not to require refutation so much as avoidance.
