Quote of the Day
The most constructive lesson now lies in prevention by design. Adenoviral vectors still have scientific value in vaccines and gene delivery research. The goal is therefore sharper than simple abandonment. Researchers now have a defined protein target to modify or remove. If pVII or its critical epitope starts the harmful immune sequence, future developers can test safer vectors that preserve immunogenicity while avoiding this trigger. That possibility changes the tone of the discussion around COVID vaccine side effects. Scientists no longer need to speak only in broad associations or unresolved suspicion. They can work from a mapped antigen, a defined mutation, and a clearer susceptibility model. WHO said in 2021 that open, transparent, and evidence-based communication is essential to maintain trust. That principle still applies.
Surveillance systems detected rare blood clots from COVID vaccine campaigns. The scientific response then kept going until the biology became clearer. The new NEJM study does not answer every remaining question. It does, however, give medicine a credible molecular explanation and a practical route toward safer adenoviral vaccine design. That is the most useful takeaway from this long debate. The problem was rare, the mechanism was obscure, and the investigation kept moving until the evidence sharpened. For readers trying to understand blood clots from COVID vaccine programs without falling into panic or denial, that is the central point. Medicine now has a much better explanation for what happened, why it happened rarely, and how future vaccine engineering may reduce the risk even further. That progress also gave researchers a clearer path toward safer vectors, better screening, and more confident public communication about risk.
Bruce Abrahamse
March 25, 2026
This is why some people had blood clots from the COVID-19 vaccine and others didn’t
Please note that this is not one of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that so many people had concerns about.
Also note that the frequency of the blood clots was about 4 people per one million doses with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. With the AstraZeneca vaccine it was about 2 cases per 100,000 in those aged 60 or older and 2 to 3 cases per 100,000 under 60.
These rates are so low that it is difficult to detect in testing. But when many hundreds of millions of people received the vaccine, the correlation became noticeable.
All vaccines (really all medical interventions) operate on a cost/benefit basis. There is always some level of negative side effects. So do the vaccines prevent more damage than they cause with side effects. Early smallpox vaccination (variolation) had a mortality rate of .5-2% but the mortality rate of the disease was 20-30%. You would have to multiply the latter number by the probability of getting the disease to get the true cost benefit. Disfigurement had a cost too as did the economic disruption caused by outbreaks but that is harder to quantify. Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette got vaccinated and had their children vaccinated as well which made it fashionable for the French nobility. George Washington, after the Continental Army was put out of action, ordered mandatory vaccination.
Where the COVID vaccines failed was on the benefit side. Remember the progression from no infection/no transmission to infection but no transmission to less severe infection but transmission to it works about as well as the flu vaccine. I am not sure we have seen the end of this progression. Given the weakness on the benefit side, the cost side becomes harder and harder to support.
For myself, by the time the vaccine was available the epidemic had run about a year and I was pretty sure I had natural immunity either from good genes or some previous infection. Nevertheless, I did the first two shots based on my history of never having a reaction and the promise that vaccinated people would be released from other restrictions. The first one proved true but the second was a lie. The first booster was just a repeat of the original one against a variant that was already extinct. The second booster was designed to protect against the new mutation. By that time it was clear that COVID was following the normal track of viral infections to become more contagious but less severe. So I punted the boosters. Never did get any variant of COVID unless it was so mild I didn’t notice.
Remember the progression from no infection/no transmission to infection but no transmission to less severe infection but transmission to it works about as well as the flu vaccine. I am not sure we have seen the end of this progression.
I don’t believe we have seen the end of this progression, but I also don’t believe it will be publicized without an impressive amount of investigative journalism (hah!). I saw a report that the vaccine’s efficacy numbers were “mathematically correct” but nevertheless painted a false picture.
Basically, when they claimed it was “90% effective,” that was technically correct, but the actual numbers say it took symptomatic (not infection) rates among the sampled participants from ~98% non-symptomatic to ~99.8% non-symptomatic, which depending on the sample size is almost statistical noise. The non-vaccinated study group was already 98% likely to not develop detectable symptoms, so the vaccine only helped 90% of that other 2%. Technically and mathematically correct, but absent the context it’s highly misleading.
So yes, I believe the progression will not cease at “about as effective as the flu vaccine” — which in some years, is as low as 30% — but I also believe the Big Pharma companies and pro-vaccine groups will do everything possible to avoid reporting any further poor results. It will take someone with media reach who is willing to do the digging and publish their findings, and that just doesn’t happen much these days.
It is a job for Julie Kelley. She is relentless. Unfortunately, everything is a job for Julie Kelley.
“Where the COVID vaccines failed was on the benefit side.”
Lots of people tried to make that point but were shouted down – I think that’s why the look at the side effects got more attention.
And certainly, the benefits for the vast majority of people was… well, not much, at best. It doesn’t take much in the way of side effects to make it not worth doing.
But hey, certain factions **REALLY** needed the population panicking and the opportunity for “emergency” actions, so…
Joe, thanks for the post, and to Richard and Archer, thank you also for the well-thought replies.
I had my reservations, but have been vaccinated and boosted up until last year. I’m in a group of concern (over 60 and have had successfully-treated lymphoma, so may be immunocompromised), and didn’t have any reactions to any of the shots, so I went ahead with them. My wife and I live pretty remotely, and don’t socialize much, and therefore neither of us ever contracted COVID, even during its peak. I’ve avoided events like our companies annual superspreader holiday party, which always seems to lay low about half of the employee population.
I’m not only glad that researchers are learning more, but I’m even happier that those with hypothesis that might reflect poorly on the vaccines aren’t being shouted down. I trust “science” when it’s actually science.
You are welcome.
I am 77 and live a largely rural and/or outdoor lifestyle. I hate crowds and avoid them. Also protects me against mass shootings since they require a crowd. Still a lot of maskers around here. Saw one today that was wearing her mask to protect against the dreaded Chin COVID.
None of us who didn’t get regret not getting it.
Just like you say that liberas/dems and repubs/conservatives/libertarians live in different worlds, so do the vaxxed and the unvaxxed. You see nothing, are sure that because nothing has happened around the apocryphal stories are false. I’ve seen stuff, and see lots of news stories of people dying suddenly while young, strange afflictions, reports of ongoing elevated excess death rates, white fibrous clots in the dead, increased disability rates, etc., and see a growing wave of death and destruction left in the wake of that damnable vax. Not a “20% of everyone keels over today” sort of wave, just a rise in the background that gets lost in the noise and is easy to dismiss.
If you are right, the world will be OK (at least on that front.) If I’m sadly more right, then the next generation will be much, MUCH smaller, and the world’s problems will change significantly. TPTB are HIGHLY motivated to lie about it, hide data, distort data, and not do studies that would actually answer definitively, dismissing them with a hand-wave. I keep adding things to my plague pages. (current is https://www.thestarscameback.com/plague-9-covering-2026/ )
But as a serious thought question, what would you do if it turns out that us tin-foil hat wearers were right all along, and the next generation is sterile, or with greatly reduce fertility? How would you respond to knowing your grandkids are sterile, along with about 3/4 of that whole generation? Is that a fair risk to not get what was little more than the flue for a healthy person? You won’t really know until 2040 or so, when the first of the 2021 born generation start to statistically have babies in significant numbers.
When it comes time for you to pay up on our bet, I will offer to give it to a good psychiatrist for your treatment of delusions.
Sadly, articles like this:
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/devastating-horrific-the-jabs-true-effect-on-mothers-to-be/
and this:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/vaccine-safety-health/cdc-buried-covid-vaccine-death-data-in-lancet-study-internal-documents-reveal
are not delusions.
Knowing with a high degree of certainty what the body-count is will be hard, given the game-playing they did with the stats, like saying because it takes two weeks after your second dose to be fully effective, if a person dies less than two week after the second dose they were recorded as “unvaccinated.” If you walked in healthy, got jabbed and keeled over before you left the pharmacy, you were recoded as “unvaccinated,” and they found other official reason for cause of death, such as “heart failure.” In fact, years ago they removed the medical code for “prophylactic inoculation and vaccination” as cause of death to help muddy the stats on vaccine deaths.
I may be wrong, but I’m not delusional.
I also note you didn’t answer the thought-question. What if I’m NOT wrong? That would be more than a “oops, accidents happen” sort of event you shrug off.
The chances of you being “NOT wrong” are so low that I have zero concern about that happening. Every time, including this time, that I dig deeper I find that, at best, the references are very misleading.
Concerning the Conservative Woman article (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2814537#google_vignette):
Concerning the Free Thought Project articlehttps://www.cdc.gov/acip/downloads/slides-2025-06-25-26/04-Meyer-COVID-508.pdf):
Those are just samples of what I could provide in a very short period of research. Please avoid referencing clickbait. It is very annoying and time consuming to refute all the deliberately misleading stuff.
I honestly hope you are right.
But we both know that “official” stats are filled with lies and inaccuracies. The official inflation rate is a blatant, in-your-face lie that anyone who goes shopping KNOWS is a lie, but still they do it. We both know crime stats are not accurate. For how many years did the tobacco companies produce reams of data saying cigarettes didn’t cause cancer? There are still people who reject even the IDEA that vaccination causes SIDS or increased autism rates, and the fact that they deliberately removed the medical code for “death by vaccination” should tell you something; the fact that many videos were posted at the time of people collapsing at vaxxing sites says it DOES happen, but it’s not recorded as such.
You yourself have said “they hate you and they want you dead” for years; what makes you think they’d only take a direct, open approach in doing so?
Because of the numbers (both bodies and dollars), and hit to credibility, getting any official, generally-recognized source (like the CDC or the Lancet) to publish honest numbers is going to be very hard, because it represents a HUGE threat to the industry, economically and politically. We -know- the under-reporting of vaccine injuries is a thing, the only debate is what size the factor is. Most non-industry sources I’ve seen put it between 30x and 50x; industry sources are highly motivated to downplay it, and refuse to study it honestly (for obvious reasons). (this older study https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf says “Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.“, and this post https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/upgraded-thursday-march-12-2026-c discusses why it’s so bad.) It took a long time before the shedding effect was formally recognized, but I’ve seen it first-hand ( https://www.thestarscameback.com/2021/04/23/just-one-datapoint-but/ ). Yes, I know, that’s “anecdotal.” But how many anecdotes does it take to become “data?” Are Rasmussen poling reports considered “data” (from 2022) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljrMPvk4mjo
(interesting side note: I’ve collected a lot of links on the mRNA and Covid topics, several thousands of them. I find it interesting that many of the links are now dead or hidden behind paywalls. Things that I’ve seen numerous times are now not coming up on searches, but the “AI summary” is denying they are a thing. Along with this, people / sites that summarize in layman’s language more technical reports [ like https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/breaking-study-pfizer-mrna-found ] which cite the originals have dead links, too, links that I know used to work. Make of that what you will, but given TPTB lie about everything…. The biggest problem we might have is finding a data-source we both agree is reasonably accurate to settle a bet with.)
There is just as much motive to lie by those who post the article you site.
As a quick and dirty way to usually know what to throw in the trash are those which do not mention the sample size of their study, how they obtained their sample, or how the data was verified. Also, if they only give absolute numbers and not rates, it is very suspect.
And where do your sources get their data and how do they and you know it is truthful and accurate?
As I’ve said before, knowing what’s true or not can be a hard thing. Different stories and articles have cited different sources, some look pretty solid and broad, some is anecdotal with reasonable extrapolation. The “official” channels are doing their best to hide or obfuscate good data.
I agree that both sides have motive to lie, but I’d disagree that it is anywhere equal. On the one hand, you have scammers fear-mongering to sell product for “spike detox” and supplements. But OTOH you have a major threat to the profits and credibility of a trillion-dollar industry (health-care). If vaccines are as safe as claimed, then there should be no objection to having a very large, very well-designed, “regular schedule” vs “totally uninjected” control group, with clear regular health-checks and publication of annual data collections. And yet, for decades that has been fought tooth and nail for absurd reasons by the industry. And when a good study does look like it’s going to get done right, suddenly there are pre-prints and retractions and double-speak and “problems” that if real should have been caught in teh design stage. That means to me that they are either deliberately sabotaged, or are being pressured after-the-fact.
How would a pediatrician react to knowing that most of the (asthma / diabetes / ear infections / auto-immune disorders / chronic problems) that she had treated and prescribed meds for through her career were cause by side-effects of the very vaccines she was injecting into them? How would people react to finding that there were hundreds of thousands, millions, even tens of millions of deaths world-wide from a heavy-handed vaccine push they forced on people? Governments would call and corporations would be bankrupt from the lawsuits. Some of the people who lost loved ones to the vaxx would be in a murderous rage. The vaxx-pushers are HIGHLY motivated to lie and hide good data; it’s an existential threat to them.
The fact that they are working to hide it so hard means they know it’s bad, the only question on our end is just how bad.
This isn’t a study, but it’s an epidemiologist talking about what he’s found looking into vaccines in general and the covid vaccine in particular. He talks slow, so 1.5x or 2x is better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVtsbvoBzbc&t=6s