This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Those mRNA COVID-19 shots, turned out in double time by an industry in the pay of the federal government at the time, are "far more" dangerous to those who took them, including those forced by government officials to take them, than getting COVID, a new report explains.
The study results appeared in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research.
The researchers included M. Nathaniel Mead of the McCullough Foundation, MIT's Stephanie Seneff, independent researcher Jessica Rose, Research Triangle Park's Russ Wolfinger, Nicolas Hulscher and Dr. Peter A. McCullough, an M.D. practicing in internal medicine, cardiology, epidemiology and more.
The report said, "They found that the modmRNA injections carry such a high risk of dangerous adverse events, that it would be safer to catch the virus without being vaccinated than to take one of the shots."
The report said, "The study categorizes the principal adverse events associated with the mRNA products with a brief systems-based synopsis of each of the six domains of potential harm: cardiovascular, neurological, hematologic, immunological, oncological and reproductive.
The shots "dramatically increase the risk of becoming severely ill or dying from potentially fatal conditions such as cancer or heart failure," the report said.
It said the study actually is No. 2, a followup to an earlier assessment that found, "health-related risks and drawbacks were drastically misreported and underreported in the Pfizer and Moderna trial evaluations of these genetic products."
The scientists concluded, among other things, it would be more accurate to refer to "mRNA vaccines" as "modified mRNA gene therapies" or "modmRNA" shots.
They found, "The COVID-19 modified mRNA (modmRNA) lipid nanoparticle-based 'vaccines' are not classical antigen-based vaccines but instead prodrugs informed by gene therapy technology."
Further, they wrote, "This leads us to consider how and why so many published papers and authorities have claimed that myocarditis [heart failure] shows a stronger association with SARS-CoV-2 infection than with the COVID-19 modmRNA injections. This single claim is patently false, and yet it has been used to justify ongoing injections despite myocarditis being recognized as a signal by the CDC and other authorities."
The results appeared on Substack, where McCullough wrote, "This manuscript evaluated all of the published data and has completely overturned a false narrative held by government agencies and the American College of Cardiology who erroneously assert that SARS-CoV-2 infection poses a greater risk of heart damage than vaccination."
It said, in fact, "The risk of suffering from myocarditis from the shots was 37 times greater than from the infection."
And it warned further recommendations to impose the shots "seems unconscionable in the extreme."
There also were higher numbers of brain disorders reported among those who took the shots.
Other complications that appeared related include "encephalitis, other encephalopathies, meningitis, myelitis, autoimmune nervous system disorders, cerebrovascular events, facial palsy" and more.
