COVID-19 Vaccination: Current Evidence, Documented Effects, and Ongoing Areas of Research

Context

COVID-19 vaccines were developed to reduce infection, severe disease, and death associated with SARS-CoV-2. mRNA, protein-based, and adenoviral-vector platforms have been deployed internationally since late 2020. Surveillance systems such as the MHRA Yellow Card scheme, the US VAERS database, and European EudraVigilance record post-marketing safety data and are continuously updated.

Effectiveness

  • Relative risk reduction (RRR): analyses for 2024–25 show reductions of approximately 30–45 % in hospitalisation compared with unvaccinated populations during high-transmission periods.

  • Absolute risk reduction (ARR): varies with baseline risk. In adults aged 65 years and above with a hospitalisation risk of about 1 %, vaccination reduced that risk by 0.4–0.5 percentage points. In healthy adults under 40 years with a risk near 0.05 %, the reduction was approximately 0.02 percentage points.

  • Protection against infection declines over several months; protection against severe outcomes remains longer but also wanes with time.

Reported or Studied Safety Issues

Myocarditis and Pericarditis

Identified after mRNA vaccination, occurring more in males under 30 and after second doses. Surveillance data record several tens of reports per million doses (it’s estimated that 10% of adverse reactions are recorded so these figures may be demonstrably higher). Research is ongoing into mechanisms and long-term cardiac outcomes.

Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia (VITT or TTS)

Recorded after adenoviral-vector vaccines. Incidence in monitoring systems is about two to three cases per million doses. Studies continue on immune triggers and susceptibility factors.

Neurological Events

Guillain-Barré syndrome and Bell’s palsy have been reported following vaccination. Incidence data are comparable with pre-pandemic background levels. Temporal and mechanistic relationships remain under investigation.

Autoimmune or Inflammatory Syndromes

Autoimmune-type and inflammatory conditions have been described. Work continues to identify possible risk modifiers and biological pathways.

Rapid-Onset or “Turbo” Cancers

Reports exist of aggressive or rapidly developing cancers detected after vaccination. Cancer registries suggest that increases are due to screening backlogs and delayed treatment during the pandemic, but this is disputed. The relationship between vaccination and tumour progression is under research (Angus Dalgliesh).

Cognitive Decline and Dementia

A 2024 South-Korean cohort study (QJM) reported an association between vaccination and subsequent diagnoses of mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease in individuals aged ≥ 65. Replication and extended follow-up are in progress. This association is being researched (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38806183/).

Fertility and Miscarriage and Reproductive Outcomes

Thorp et al. analysed data from vaccine adverse-event reports to compare outcomes following COVID-19 vaccination with those following influenza vaccination. Their report identified higher proportional reporting ratios for miscarriage, foetal malformations, foetal cardiac disorders, foetal growth anomalies, stillbirth, preterm delivery, placental anomalies, and menstrual abnormalities in the COVID-19-vaccinated group. They concluded the findings warranted further research into placental pathology, spike-protein biodistribution, and inflammatory mechanisms during pregnancy.

Using three normalization methods (by time, by doses, and by persons vaccinated), the study finds consistent and strong “safety signals.”

Based on these findings, the authors argue for an immediate worldwide moratorium on COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant women and caution in women of reproductive age, until long-term safety data are available. They  contend the observed signals are strong enough to merit policy change.

Full text (clickable link)

Sudden or Unexplained Death in Adults

Health authorities in several countries review mortality data to assess reports of unexpected or unexplained deaths following COVID-19 vaccination. Post-marketing surveillance systems such as the UK MHRA Yellow Card programme, the US Vaccine Safety Datalink and other registries track deaths reported in proximity to vaccination and consequently it is deemed there is limited verifiable data available save anecdotal from those who have lost loved ones suddenly following the roll out. Sudden-death cases have usually been linked to cardiovascular or other conditions rather than vaccination because that would be deemed “misinformation” so readers are advised to research for themselves. Research continues into rare cardiac or arrhythmic events, including myocarditis.

Data Limitations

  • Observational studies do not establish causation; confounding and reporting biases can influence results.
  • Passive-reporting databases capture all events after vaccination, regardless of proven linkage.
  • Population risks vary with age, health status, variant circulation, and time since previous infection or dose.

Ongoing Research Topics

  • Duration of spike-protein expression and immune activation (click the link for a spike protein detox or see here:  for information (please be aware that mainstream deems this as “baseless” so keep an open mind and research for yourself)
  • Chronic-inflammation and autoimmune mechanisms.
  • Long-term neurological, oncological, and reproductive health outcomes.

Summary

Evidence to date indicates limited (arguably measurable) protection against severe COVID-19, but arguably in older or medically vulnerable adults.  Adverse events have been identified and quantified through surveillance. Several associations—cardiac, neurological, oncological, and cognitive—are the subject of continuing research to determine frequency, mechanism, and potential causality. Readers can verify data directly from public databases and peer-reviewed studies to inform personal and clinical decision-making.

Further reading – here are two books which the “mainstream” claim as mis/disinformation and contrary to publicly available guidance – you can make your own minds up regarding these but bear in mind that minds have been closed due to repetitive guidance and big pharma funding; the author is not claiming anything by citing them, simply considering an alternative viewpoint; both authors have studied scientific, medical and professional literature to start asking the questions – then consider is this considering terrain theory more extensively – i.e. hygiene,  nutrition, sanitation and toxins in the environment that play a greater part in overall human health?  I leave that question open:

Can You Catch a Cold? by Daniel Roytas

Subtitle: Untold History & Human Experiments

Here are six key themes or findings from that book:

  1. Challenge to contagion theory
    Roytas reviews over 200 human “contagion experiments” and claims that many fail to show consistent transmission of cold or flu from sick to healthy volunteers. He argues this suggests the standard notion of catching a cold via droplets or contact is not fully validated.

  2. Historical record & lost data
    The author examines old medical literature and records, arguing that much early work that questioned germ theory was suppressed or forgotten. He suggests that alternative models of disease were side-lined as germ theory became dominant.

  3. Environmental, metabolic, and stress factors
    Roytas proposes that many “cold and flu” symptoms may arise from environmental exposures (temperature shifts, pollutants), nutritional or metabolic imbalances, and stress rather than a transmissible virus.

  4. Psychological / nocebo influence
    The book discusses how expectation, belief, or fear (nocebo effect) may influence symptom development or perceived illness, particularly in group settings.

  5. Questioning viral isolation and proof methods
    Roytas scrutinises virology methods, especially claims of isolation, purification, and re-infection tests. He contends those methods have methodological gaps or rely on inference rather than direct proof.

  6. Alternative disease framework
    The book advocates a return to older frameworks (terrain theory, detoxification, innate resilience) as potentially more valid than germ-driven models, especially when viral causation is uncertain.

Virus Mania by Torsten Engelbrecht, Claus Köhnlein, Samantha Bailey, et al.

Here are six prominent themes from Virus Mania:

Viruses as unproven hypotheses
The authors argue that the existence, pathogenicity, and disease-causing role of many viruses (including SARS-CoV-2, measles, influenza) lack proof according to their standards. They contend that protocols claiming isolation rely on indirect methods (PCR, antibody inference, culture with host cells) rather than pure virus particles.

Critique of laboratory methods (PCR, antibodies, culture)
Virus Mania claims that molecular tools (PCR amplification, antibody binding assays) and cell culture are used to re-assemble viral genomes without having truly isolated intact virions, thus introducing circular logic in virus detection.

Diseases as cellular stress / metabolic response
The book proposes that symptoms attributed to viruses are better explained as responses to cell stress, toxicity (pollutants, chemicals, vaccines), metabolic disruption, or other environmental insults—not invasion by an external pathogen.

Disease “epidemics” as social narrative & medical industry factor
The authors assert the medical and pharmaceutical industries promote fear of viruses to justify vaccines, diagnostics, and profits. They discuss how media amplification, testing campaigns, and redefining normal thresholds contribute to perceived epidemics.

Historical reinterpretation
The text revisits past epidemics (Spanish flu, polio, smallpox) and argues that poor sanitation, malnutrition, and chemical exposures may have been more contributory than viral spread. It questions mainstream historical narratives about vaccine successes.

Call for virus redefinition & paradigm shift
The authors call for a reassessment of virology fundamentals, proposing that one should redefine “virus,” revisit Koch’s postulates, and adopt broader models of disease causation that prioritize cellular health rather than pathogen-focused models.

Please bear in mind “Vaccine Amnesia: How the Media Used to Report Vaccine Injuries” by A Midwestern Doctor from the USA

The article outlines how vaccine-related injuries and safety controversies were once covered in mainstream media but are no longer widely discussed. It presents a timeline of historical examples illustrating shifts in media reporting and public awareness.

Early Vaccine Incidents

Polio Vaccine (1950s–60s): Describes the Cutter incident, where some batches of the Salk polio vaccine caused paralysis. Mentions later discoveries of SV40 contamination and subsequent regulatory reforms.
Swine Flu Vaccine (1976): Notes the suspension of the U.S. programme following reports of Guillain–Barré syndrome, and highlights how coverage of vaccine side effects was widespread at the time.

Later Vaccine Controversies
DTP (Pertussis) Vaccine: Discusses reported cases of neurological injury and the formation of advocacy groups calling for reform. Mentions early television and newspaper investigations into these reports.
Hepatitis B Vaccine: Describes expansion of vaccination to newborns and low-risk groups, with media attention on cases alleging injury.
Anthrax Vaccine: Outlines complaints by military personnel and investigations into manufacturing and testing issues.
HPV (Gardasil): Lists reports of autoimmune and neurological issues after vaccination, and notes the presence of earlier critical news segments on the topic.
Influenza Vaccine: Summarises periodic public debates over effectiveness and risk.
Autism and Vaccines: References coverage in early 2000s television segments that discussed possible associations and government conflict-of-interest concerns.

Media Changes

The article states that, in the past, newspapers and television networks investigated vaccine safety concerns, whereas today similar stories are largely absent. It attributes this change to:

  • Financial dependence on pharmaceutical advertising.
  • Government partnerships with media outlets to promote vaccination.
  • Professional pressure on journalists and editors not to publish critical vaccine stories.
  • Decline of investigative journalism and rise of centralised media ownership.

Examples of Journalists and Media Figures

The article lists reporters who previously covered vaccine injury topics but later left mainstream outlets, including Sharyl Attkisson, Tucker Carlson, and Megyn Kelly.

Recent Context

The article compares historical vaccine controversies to the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, suggesting recurring patterns in how adverse events are discussed and reported.

Conclusion

The author introduces the concept of “vaccine amnesia,” describing a societal pattern of forgetting previous vaccine controversies once new programmes are introduced. The article concludes that this forgetting enables the repetition of past mistakes and limits open public discussion about vaccine safety.