This post was published by Jon Fleetwood. Please visit his Substack and subscribe to support his work. Follow Jon: Instagram@realjonfleetwood / X@JonMFleetwood / Facebook@realjonfleetwood
A massive new study funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and published last week in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine provides evidence that seniors vaccinated for influenza experienced more heart injuries, not fewer.
The findings come after U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. cut American funding to Bill Gates’ vaccine syndicate Gavi, citing a 2017 study showing the DTP shot “may kill more children from other causes than it saves” from diphtheria, tetanus, or pertussis.
The new influenza vaccine study analyzed over 8.1 million Chinese adults aged 65 and older between 2020 and 2022.
Out of those, just 170,011 received an influenza vaccine, while more than 8 million remained unvaccinated.
Researchers then tracked the rate of major cardiovascular events in each group.
The Raw Data Tell the Story
The most striking finding comes from the crude numbers.
When researchers looked at acute coronary syndromes (ACS)—a category that includes heart attacks, unstable angina, and other sudden cardiac events—the results were blunt:
- Vaccinated: 26.4 events per 1,000 person-years
- Unvaccinated: 26.3 events per 1,000 person-years
- Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR): 1.27 (95% CI: 1.24–1.31)
That figure means vaccinated seniors had a 27% higher risk of heart injury compared to the unvaccinated.
This is the kind of red-flag signal that would normally demand urgent investigation. Instead, the authors buried it under layers of statistical adjustments.
From Harm to ‘Protection’ by Statistical Tricks
Instead of reporting the raw signal, the authors leaned on advanced methods to massage the numbers:
- Propensity Score Matching (PSM): After balancing for age, frailty, and comorbidities, the risk conveniently dropped to an IRR of 1.00—no difference.
- Proximal Causal Inference (PCI): Then came a novel, experimental method that uses “negative control outcomes” like reflux and cataract visits as proxies for confounding. With PCI, the numbers flipped entirely, showing an apparent protective effect of IRR 0.87—now implying a 13% reduction in heart risk.
In other words:
- Unadjusted: More heart events in vaccinated.
- After modeling: No difference.
- After PCI: Claimed protection.
The entire pro-vaccine narrative rests on the PCI method—a technique so assumption-heavy that its outputs are only as reliable as the proxies chosen.
If those proxies don’t capture reality, the crude finding of higher heart risk remains the most honest signal.
Why This Matters
This is not a small data anomaly.
The dataset covered more than 8 million people across three years.
The sheer size strengthens the reliability of the crude findings.
And yet, the headline message presented to the world is that flu shots reduce heart risk—precisely the opposite of what the unadjusted data show.
When the raw evidence points to increased cardiovascular harm, but the conclusion is flipped into cardiovascular benefit through statistical gymnastics, the integrity of the study must be questioned.
And the funding source matters: the Gates Foundation has poured billions into global vaccine campaigns.
A study they bankroll concluding that flu shots protect the heart, despite showing the opposite before adjustments, raises unavoidable concerns about bias and agenda.
Bottom Line
A Gates-funded study has confirmed in its own data that influenza vaccination in older adults correlates with a 27% higher risk of heart injury compared to the unvaccinated.
Only by layering on controversial statistical techniques did the authors transform the signal of harm into a claim of protection.
The findings demand a closer look—not only at the real cardiovascular risks of influenza vaccination, but also at the way powerful funders and their preferred methodologies shape the narrative presented to the public.
Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.
More news on our radar
I’d take a different reading. I think this study is worthless because the results show nothing at all:
“Of these, 170,011 received influenza vaccination, while 8,011,627 remained unvaccinated. Vaccinated participants were generally frailer (severely frail: 19.1% vs. 14.7%) and had a higher prevalence of hypertension (83.0% vs. 74.9%). After PS matching, all measured characteristics were well-balanced among 339,976 matched participants…”
Obviously the authors think, statistical tampering can heal even the biggest flaws in data. It can’t. If your stuck with an uneven distribution like they are and 32.472 (vaxx) to 1.177.709 (unvaxx) frail persons in the sample, you’ll import a probability 64% ending up with a skewed match in your proximal causal inference. So this study is junk, it shows nothing because it’s impossible to match vaxx and unvaxx reliably.
Instead they should have stuck to conventional modelling and try to control for frailty, rather than use it as a means to skew the distribution even further. I don’t think Gates has any hand in this result. It’s either the consequence of statistical illiteracy or the result of peer pressure because still studies critical of vaccination meet more hurdles pre-publication that sycophantic stuff. Competition in China is high. They need publications…
However, Chapel Hill is rather not the kind of partner in collaboration, you’d seek… Baric’s lot, unsavoury.
I’m 75 years old and born in the USA. The last flu shot I ever received was in 1971 when I enlisted in the US Army. From the early 80’s on, I lived and worked in China for most of three decades and never got the flu, nor the shot, in China or the USA. I never got the COVID shot(s) and only wore a $1 Walmart bandana during the COVID terror campaign when screamed at to do so upon entering the People’s Republic of California. I’ve protected my natural immunity from false prophets.
mRNA