BREAKING STUDY: COVID-19 “Vaccines” DISRUPT THE BLOOD-BRAIN BARRIER — 63 Serious Brain & Spinal Cord Safety Signals Identified

Key Takeaways

• Post uses VAERS data without proper causality analysis
• Reported risk multipliers lack adjustment for reporting bias
• Major health agencies deem COVID‑19 vaccines safe
• Misinterpretation can increase vaccine hesitancy
• Peer‑reviewed studies show no widespread neurological harm

Summary

A recent Substack post cites a study claiming COVID‑19 mRNA vaccines increase reports of rare neurological disorders by dozens to thousands of times compared with flu shots, based on VAERS data from 1990‑2024. The post lists specific conditions such as Creutzfeldt‑Jakob disease, various forms of meningitis, and herpes‑related CNS infections, and calls for a global vaccine ban. The article references a peer‑reviewed paper but does not present epidemiological controls, and health agencies have repeatedly warned that VAERS reports alone cannot establish causality. Experts note that the claims conflict with large‑scale safety reviews showing no increased risk of these disorders.

Pulse Analysis

VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) is a passive surveillance tool that collects any health event reported after vaccination, regardless of causality. Because anyone can submit a report, the database is prone to over‑reporting, duplicate entries, and reporting spikes after media attention. Comparing raw VAERS counts for COVID‑19 vaccines with those for seasonal influenza without adjusting for the billions of doses administered, demographic differences, and reporting rates produces misleading risk ratios. Proper epidemiological analysis requires background incidence rates and controlled studies, which the Substack article does not provide.

Extensive safety monitoring by the CDC, FDA, and independent researchers has examined millions of vaccine recipients. Large cohort studies and randomized trials have consistently found no statistically significant increase in rare neurological conditions such as Creutzfeldt‑Jakob disease, transverse myelitis, or herpes encephalitis after mRNA vaccination. The cited peer‑reviewed paper focuses on mechanistic hypotheses but does not present population‑level evidence of harm. When adjusted for exposure, the incidence of these events remains within expected background levels, reinforcing the overall safety profile of COVID‑19 vaccines.

The spread of sensational headlines claiming thousands‑fold risk elevations can erode public confidence and fuel vaccine hesitancy, jeopardizing herd immunity and prolonging the pandemic. Health communicators must emphasize the distinction between reported events and proven adverse effects, and guide audiences toward vetted sources such as the CDC’s COVID‑19 Vaccine Safety Dashboard. Transparent, data‑driven messaging helps maintain trust, ensuring that vaccination decisions are based on rigorous science rather than anecdotal or misinterpreted surveillance data.