Re: Religion and Vaccine Arguments
Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2026 7:57 am
https://jessicar.substack.com/p/surgisp ... jama-study
Surgisphere 2.0 - the new JAMA study that says the COVID shots are cardioprotective
Good controls and RCTs be damned!
What are the main problems with this study from a methodological perspective (if any)?
It’s an observational study, not an RCT - baseline comparability is everything. Their survival curves show all-cause mortality separating by ~day 10, MACE separating by ~week 5 and all-cause death by ~week 2 which is implausibly fast for a true vaccine effect on these outcomes. The only realistic explanation is that the “no vaccine” group might have sicker/frailer from the start.
What are the main problems with this study in terms of the results – in relation to cardiovascular conditions – and how they were interpreted and presented (if any)?
See above answer. Bad controls/falsification tests: All-cause mortality is a good one here because a vaccine shouldn’t rapidly cut deaths from all causes if the groups are balanced. Quick separation screams confounding.
What are the main problems with this study in terms of the results – in relation to overall vaccine benefits and the cohorts where these benefits were noted – and how they were interpreted and presented (if any)?
See above answer. This is Surgisphere 2.0. This paper should not have passed peer-review.
What are the main problems with this study in terms of the results it presents among the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated cohorts (if any)?
The study design tried to mitigate healthy vaccinee bias via flu-shot-only controls and weighting but failed, as proven by the supplement’s time-to-event curves. This invalidates causal claims about the booster’s cardioprotective effects. The results largely reflect who chooses extra vaccines rather than vaccine efficacy itself. Randomized or better-controlled evidence is needed.
Please share your thoughts on Prasad’s analysis – what would you add to it, if anything?
Prasad is right.
What do the study’s results and data actually tell us?
Nothing. Because the study design is flawed and cannot support causal claims. The study’s data show very small absolute associations between the 2024-2025 COVID booster (in flu-vaccinated veterans) and lower cardiovascular risks. It was allowed to pass peer-review to pump out a false narrative, in my opinion.
Is there anything else you would like to add, not covered by the above?
No. I think I covered it.
Jess