An article circulates based on an abstract published in a scientific journal, but it contains serious content errors
You’ve shared an article with us that has been published on a number of websites, which we had previously verified (Spanish only), sounding the alarm without solid evidence that the mRNA vaccines – Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna – will cause “more than 62 million cardiovascular deaths worldwide in 2022”. The existence of this prediction is FALSE: this piece of data is calculated based on a test that is not designed to arrive at the conclusions at which it is supposedly arriving. In fact, the results are not statistically representative and the author of the study has since disproven his calculations.
Covid-19 vaccines are expected to cause more than 62 million cardiovascular deaths worldwide in 2022 […] The mRNA covid-19 vaccines more than double the chance of heart attack in five years.
According to Reuters, it all began with a study by Steven Gundry, an ex-cardiothoracic surgeon who now devotes himself to selling natural supplements that he markets himself and to running a private clinic for restorative medicine where he helps “his clients get healthy without surgery”.
In 2021, Gundry published the conclusions of a prediction he had previously made at a conference on the website of the scientific journal Circulation, a leading publication in his field. The study, which was a conference summary and not a peer-reviewed article, stated that the vaccinated people in the study had a higher risk of suffering acute coronary syndrome (ACS), a cardiac complication that stops the heart from receiving a sufficient quantity of blood due to a blockage in a coronary artery, according to a sample that he had analysed. It can cause unstable angina (Spanish only) or a heart attack, which can be fatal.
The remarks taken from talks at conferences undergo a less rigorous reviewing process than a paper in a scientific journal, which we also explained previously (Spanish only).
A prediction without scientific basis
Soon after the text was published, one website that frequently publishes misinformation (and that we had previously disproven [Spanish only]) published an article written by an unnamed “concerned reader” that calculated, based on Gundry’s publication, the number of people who could die due to cardiac problems, taking into account the population vaccinated with mRNA vaccines. That’s where he then gives the figure that around 62 million people will die in 2022.
“In the article, the author infers that if the incidence of acute coronary syndrome (resulting from the vaccine) increases and the morality rate of that is X, that many millions of people are going to die”, explains José María Gámez Martínez (Spanish only), president of the Clinical Cardiology Association of the Spanish Society for Cardiology (Sociedad Española de Cardiología, or SEC). “This would be true if the test would actually have that purpose and if it were valid”, he concludes.
To argue that the vaccines double the risk of developing acute coronary syndrome, the author of the article uses an index called the PULS Cardiac Test, which is supposedly good at identifying asymptomatic patients who are at risk of developing acute coronary syndrome. However, the test is not validated, i.e. there are no independent scientific studies that confirm that the test is effective at doing what it claims to do.
The summary published by Gundry was corrected by Gundry himself in late December 2021, after other cardiologists had noted additional serious deficiencies in the document. In fact, Gundry deleted the word “validated” from the text when referring to the test, word that he had previously used.
Errors in form and content
The text is not acceptable because in medical research it is essential to have a control group, i.e. a group with similar characteristics to the sample set that is analysed without undergoing any sort of treatment, allowing scientists to see what differences are produced in comparison to those who do undergo treatment.
This is something that Gundry does not do and which he actually acknowledges in the document he issued to correct his errors, noting that he had added phrases to the abstract such as “in this observational study, no statistical comparison was performed”.