top of page

Two studies on adverse cardiac events in young people following vaccination: which is more credible?

Updated: Apr 29, 2022

Two recent studies on cardiac events in young people following vaccination - one in Israel and one in the UK - have come to very different conclusions.

This one based on Israel's National Emergency Medical Services (EMS) dataset from 2019 to 2021 showed that there was a 25% increase in volume of cardiac arrest and acute coronary syndrome emergency calls in 16–39-year-olds between Jan-May 2021 compared to the 2019-2020 baseline. This increase was significantly associated with the rates of 1st and 2nd vaccine doses administered to this age group but were not with COVID-19 infection rates.

In contrast, a preprint - whose main authors are the people at the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) in the UK responsible for producing the monthly vaccine mortality surveillance reports - came to a very different conclusion about the effect of the vaccine on young people. This preprint focused on cardiac and all-cause deaths of individuals aged 12-29 occurring within 12 weeks of vaccination or testing positive for COVID-19. They concluded that there is no evidence of an association between COVID-19 vaccination and an increased risk of death in young people, but that COVID-19 infection was associated with substantially higher risk of cardiac related death and all-cause death.

Is it possible that in Israel the vaccination and not the virus is strongly associated with increased cardiac events among young people, while in the UK it is the virus and not the vaccine associated with increased cardiac deaths in young people?

Anybody reading our previous work on this subject will know that the ONS have been basing their vaccine mortality analyses on data that is systemically flawed because of both misclassification (whereby those who die shortly after vaccination are classifed as unvaccinated) and missing deaths of those who die shortly after vaccination.

It seems the data in this article suffers from the same flaws as their previous monthly surveillance reports; for example, note the following stated in their results:

"There was a decrease in the risk of all-cause death in the first week after vaccination"

The fact that the ONS data shows the vaccines have an instantaneous miraculous impact on non-Covid mortality is one of the anomolies that led us to show why their data were flawed. A spike in non-Covid mortality in those who do not take the vaccine when it is offered to their age group is another indication. We have so little faith in the reliability of the vaccine mortality data provided by the ONS that we have stopped analysing their monthly reports.

It is also important to note that there is a lack of transparency in the ONS article, as the authors have not released the raw data (for which they have privileged access). Instead the article says:

Data used in this study will be made available in the ONS Secure Research Service

We have previously tried to gain access to that service but discovered that, even though we were considered sufficiently 'qualified' to appy, we could not agree to its highly restrictive terms.

4,705 views2 comments


Behavioural patterns dramatically changed in 2019-2020, significant decreases in mobility across the globe. Compared with any prior year. So using 2019-2020 as your baseline for measuring cardio-related anything, EMS calls biometrics, doesn't matter, which clearly could be significantly influenced by physical activity levels in that population, is ridiculous. Show me that correlation for some sort of aggregate from whenever 2010-15 vs 2021 or or do them individually like you did 2019-2020, whatever. Show me that correlation and you've got a very strong argument.


The preprint terrifies me. Can someone explain if I am missing something here? Open to being wrong: - Supplementary Figure 2 shows an obvious temporal association between vaccination and death.

- They explain this away by using a 12-week cutoff to reduce bias from delayed death registration. But for the life of me I can't see any reason to select this week. As they admit in the paper, if you extend follow up periods, associations become significant sooner or later. Seems to me the onus is on them to prove they selected the "right" risk and control periods, rather than assume it. - They also ought to have thrown out the first 3 weeks which showed negative associations presumably due to healthy…

bottom of page