Gates-Funded Study Confirms 27% Higher Risk of Heart Injury in Influenza-Vaccinated Compared to Unvaccinated: 'The Lancet'
Authors leaned on statistical gymnastics to flip raw findings of harm into a narrative of protection.
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.
Follow us on Instagram @realjonfleetwood & Twitter/X @JonMFleetwood.
If you value this reporting, consider upgrading to a paid subscription.
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.
Follow us on Instagram @realjonfleetwood & Twitter/X @JonMFleetwood.
If you value this reporting, consider upgrading to a paid subscription.
For advertising & sponsorship opportunities reaching 370,000+ monthly viewers, contact us by clicking below.
I dont get it. How does 26.4 vs 26.3 incidents per 1000 person years translate into a 27% increase. Not a criticism. Just dont understand the statistics. Please explain.
I think I understand the concept of PCI but that should be expanded upon. thanks. Did they explain why the events they chose were particularly indicative of confounding error?
I wouldn't trust Gates statistics... The guy behind the depopulation agenda doesn't exactly have your best interests in mind.