Letter by Marc Wathelet, PhD, to the Belgian Minister of Health
Note: an Addendum has been added this November 24th, to include new evidence from an article published in the prestigious journal “Circulation” and confirming the considerably elevated risk of cardiovascular accidents.
This letter from Marc Wathelet, PhD, Expert in Molecular Biology and Immunology, is addressed to the Belgian Minister of Health, Frank Vandenbroucke, and analyzes not only the mandates imposed on health care workers but also the vaccination of children and the “Safe Ticket” vaccination passport intended for the general population. The content of the letter is relevant not only to the Belgian situation but also to that of other countries adopting this kind of coercive measures, that are particularly questionable as for their public health benefits.
(The letter is available in French at this LINK)
Dear Mr. Vandenbroucke , Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Social Affairs and Public Health
Thank you for your response to our letter concerning the compulsory vaccination of health care workers, which you justify based on a certain number of assertions which are however not supported by documentation of scientifically established facts.
On the contrary,
the scientific data available to date contradict all of your arguments and, as detailed below, we can only conclude that the compulsory vaccination of health care workers is not only useless, but also counterproductive from a public health perspective. Such compulsory vaccination also violates the principles of bio-ethics and medical ethics as well as our human rights.
1) Compulsory Vaccination of Health Care Workers is Unnecessary
Mandatory vaccination of health care workers is unnecessary because studies show beyond a reasonable doubt that it does not prevent the contamination of an individual, nor does it reduce the viral load of infected people, and therefore their ability to transmit the virus to others.
In appendix A you will find a long list of facts, scientific publications and official statements from qualified agencies and individuals, such as Dr. Fauci, who confirms our assertion that vaccination does not prevent the disease. the contamination of an individual and his ability to transmit the delta variant circulating today to others.
We will only take a recent example here: on September 23, the Irish Examiner announced that in the city of Waterford, 99.7% of those over 18 were fully vaccinated, which is the highest total in the entire European Union. https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40704104.html . On October 11, Waterford News & Star reported that the city had the highest incidence rate in Ireland https://waterford-news.ie/2021/10/11/waterford-now-has-highest-incidence-of-covid-in-ireland/ .
There is only one conclusion to be drawn, which cannot be disputed in good faith: beyond studies, in the real world, in practice: vaccination does not make it possible to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the community.
2) Mandatory Vaccination of Health Care Workers is Counterproductive from a Public Health Point of View
The message that COVID vaccines would be “safe and effective,” an unsupported claim if only for the lack of the necessary hindsight, was hammered out constantly for months in all the media. One of the negative effects of this campaign is the acceptance of this assertion as an established fact, not only by the population but also by its leaders.
As a result, vaccinated people respect less behaviors such as social distancing or wearing a mask. And since they are more likely to be asymptomatic when infected, which makes them less aware of the risk they pose to others, they are actually more likely to spread the virus than non-vaccinated people.
In practice, this means that the COVID Safe Ticket (Belgian vaccination passport) is not only useless but also counterproductive. It is a license for vaccinated people to infect others, whether they are vaccinated or not.
The same reasoning applies to health care workers, even if they observe social distancing more scrupulously: vaccinating all health care workers will not prevent the contamination of “sick or vulnerable people because of their great age” which you are rightly concerned about.
We agree with you that “people taken care of have the right to maximum safety”. We offer two non-exclusive alternatives to the compulsory vaccination of health care workers, which will be much more effective in preventing nosocomial infections:
a. Have all nursing staff, vaccinated or not, tested at high frequency. In this regard, note that nasopharyngeal tests are not without risk, as reported by the Academy of Medicine in France https://tinyurl.com/7fnj6nu8 . Two other safer methods can be considered: an oro-pharyngeal antigen test or an oral PCR test.
b. Establish a voluntary ivermectin prophylaxis program: There are 14 studies that support the effectiveness of this approach https://ivmmeta.com.
Finally, the compulsory vaccination of health care workers is counterproductive from a public health point of view because those who still refuse to be vaccinated will no longer be able to work, and therefore the number of health care workers, already in short supply, will be even smaller, with a negative impact on public health.
In France, there are ~ 300,000 unvaccinated health care workers (~ 10%) https://tinyurl.com/47j2pd5v , and 15,000 of them are already suspended from their job https://tinyurl.com/5ejfxewf . In Belgian hospitals, 9.4% of health care workers are not vaccinated and in elderly / nursing homes, 13.1% are not https://tinyurl.com/4fzvma6m .
3) The Illusion of Herd Immunity
You say: “Scientists say that 70% of the total population (including children) would need to be fully vaccinated for everyone to be protected. With the Delta variant, which is more contagious than the first variants, we continue to aim for that 70%, but we are striving to achieve the highest percentage possible.”
This opinion seems to be shared above all by the experts appointed by the government. On the contrary, many scientists had anticipated that vaccinating during a pandemic was not a sufficient approach to control the virus, and events proved them right (see Appendix A for a list of citations).
You say that “Vaccination reduces the circulation of the virus”. This is contradicted by the articles cited above about the delta variant (Appendix A), the example of the City of Waterford, and now a large study shows that the increases in COVID-19 are indeed not linked to the levels of vaccination worldwide (cf the comparative study of 68 countries, as well as 2,947 counties in the United States) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7 .
4) The Dangers of COVID vs. the Dangers of Vaccination
You say, “If we’re afraid of variants, we certainly need to vaccinate more today.” Since hard data indicates that vaccination does not work in practice, even when everyone is vaccinated, the solution cannot be to vaccinate more!
There is no reason to be afraid of variants: on the one hand the lethality of the Delta variant is one tenth of the Alpha according to Public Health England, and on the other hand the lethality of COVID is intrinsically weak. It is mainly linked to the presence of comorbidities (99% of deaths occur in people with comorbidity, 96% in people with multiple comorbidities, Appendix B ).
Importantly, this lethality is comparable to that caused by other respiratory infections. Therefore, neither the COVID Safe Ticket nor the compulsory vaccination are justifiable from a public health point of view!
Those at risk have had the opportunity to be vaccinated or can take prophylactic treatment if they choose not to be vaccinated. The situation of these individuals cannot therefore justify putting other healthy individuals at unnecessary risk.
The risks inherent in COVID vaccinations, in the medium and long term, simply remain unknown, due to the lack of the necessary hindsight (we note, however, the prolonged post-vaccination syndrome, similar to long COVID). The short-term risk is evident despite the intense efforts of the health authorities, mainstream media and big tech to suppress all information on this subject.
For example, the Israeli Ministry of Health published an article on its Facebook page about severe adverse reactions, that it described as very rare only, to find itself inundated by a deluge of contrary opinions from its citizens (14,000 in a few hours), opinions that were swiftly deleted. Denying this reality is not a solution to the problem.
Facebook is routinely removing any group that identifies adverse reactions to vaccines, groups with tens of thousands of users in the United States and elsewhere. By what right? In French speaking countries alone, the (non-exhaustive) collection of screenshots of these individual reports testifies to the catastrophic scale of the phenomenon https://tinyurl.com/337947zx .
Pharmacovigilance databases around the world are all reporting an increase in severe adverse reactions and deaths from COVID vaccines ( http://www.vigiaccess.org/ [WHO]; https: //vaers.hhs .gov / [United States]; https://yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/the-yellow-card-scheme/ [United Kingdom]; https://www.adrreports.eu/en/search.html [Eudravigilance, European Union]).
Analysis of VAERS data, for example, shows a much higher incidence for COVID vaccines than for influenza severe adverse events (28 times more) and deaths (57 times more, see Appendix B). What’s the use of these pharmacovigilance sites if such data are brushed aside as irrelevant, when on the contrary, they should call for the suspension of the vaccination campaign?
The fact-checking sites, financed by the pharmaceutical industry, come to the rescue of the official narrative by affirming that there is no proof that these deaths are attributable to the vaccines. This is to reverse the burden of proof!
According to a report from the French medications agency ANSM (January 28, 2021), the official pharmacovigilance rule is this: “The analysis of reported cases takes into account clinical, chronological, semiological and pharmacological data. It may lead to the vaccine’s responsibility for the occurrence of an observed adverse event being dismissed only when another, certain, cause is identified.”
In fact, an audit of data reported to VAERS shows that only 14% of deaths following vaccination can be attributed to another cause, and it is not just anyone filling such reports, as 67% of the reports have been made by a doctor. Similarly, in Eudravigilance, 79% of the reports regarding a death were filed by a health care professional.
In reality, all of the Bradford Hill criteria are mostly observed, which means that these vaccines are the cause of most of the reported adverse reactions. When autopsies, which are too rarely done, are performed, between 30 and 100% of deaths are attributable to vaccination (see annex B).
These databases are poorly designed, leading to erroneous reports on both sides of the debate. For example, we see circulating for Eudravigilance a figure greater than 25,000 deaths following vaccination against COVID. A more rigorous analysis indicates 7,174 deaths as of October 9, 2021. VAERS analysis gives a number of deaths of the same order of magnitude (7,680, as of October 8, 2021).
These pharmacovigilance systems are passive, leading to a very significant underreporting of the real number of cases. A factor of 5 seems conservative, but regardless of the exact number, what is indisputable is that people in good health, without co-morbidities, young people, die from vaccination or are seriously injured.
A rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn from the market in 1999 because of only 15 cases of intussusception. The swine flu vaccination campaign in 1976 was halted after 25 deaths. We are at about 3,000 times more at the minimum (appendix B). How many more deaths will it take before we realize the obvious?
Data shows that those who are cautious about vaccines are more educated on average than those who favour vaccination, contrary to how they are portrayed in the media.
And the reality of serious adverse effects due to vaccination is confirmed by the fact that it is precisely health care workers who do not want to be vaccinated, despite their education and the fact that they are generally in favour of vaccination (they are not anti-vaxxers!), because they are on the front line and can see the damage these vaccines cause.
It is therefore deeply immoral to make vaccination compulsory, whether it concerns health care workers or any category of citizens. Likewise, it is unethical to encourage the vaccination of groups of individuals who were excluded from the Phase 3 of the clinical trials, in particular pregnant women and those under the age of 18.
Children deaths due to COVID are extremely rare and observed exclusively in individuals suffering from severe co-morbidities. Therefore the deaths of healthy children already recorded following vaccination should lead to an immediate moratorium on the vaccination of children. This should also apply to pregnant women, especially given the absence of information on the long-term effects of these injections.
Compulsory vaccination violates not only ethics, but also fundamental concepts of rights, as demonstrated by Alessandro Negroni, professor of philosophy of law at the University of Genoa. “In light of European and international law, genetic anti-covid vaccines constitute a medical experiment on human beings. From an ethical as well as a legal point of view, no one can be obliged to submit to a form of medical experimentation in the absence of free and informed consent.” http://www.mediaplus.site/2021/10/09/les-vaccins-genetiques-anti-covid-sont-une-forme-dexperimentation-medicale/
We hope that you will take this analysis into account and that you will realize that we must abandon the idea of compulsory vaccination with experimental products for anyone, as well as the implementation of a COVID Safe Ticket based on anything else than a recent test.
Let us also abandon therapeutic nihilism, and treat infected individuals early, as medicine had always done before the start of this crisis.
By ReinfoCovid Belgium and the non-profit “Notre Bon Droit”
Analysis by Marc G. Wathelet, Ph.D. (Molecular Biology)
APPENDIX A – Data on the Effects of Vaccination on Infection and Transmission
The effect of vaccination on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its transmission to others was modest in the initial studies, but the rapid decline in immunity in vaccinated individuals and the appearance of more contagious variants makes this effect negligible today, as discussed in detail in this document https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/questions-sur-limmunisation-et-la-transmission-de-marc-wathelet/?published=t , drafted as part of a legal action by the non-profit organization “Notre Bon Droit” in opposition to the “COVID Safe Ticket” — the Belgian Government’s vaccination passport.
This document dates from July 28, 2021, and contains 50 references and the studies that have appeared since that date only confirm this analysis:
Data from Public Health England up to the 40th week of 2021
The most recent data from Public Health England indicate that in all cohorts the rate of infection is higher in vaccinated than in unvaccinated people from the age of 30. In these conditions, the obligation of vaccination is simply absurd.
The CDC and Dr. Fauci recognized the impact of the greater contagiousness of the Delta variant and did reinstate the wearing of the mask for the vaccinated https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/28/dr-fauci-on- why-cdc-changed-guidelines-delta-is-a-different-virus.html.
In addition, the document cited above https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/questions-sur-limmunisation-et-la-transmission-de-marc-wathelet/?published=t also compares immunity against SARS -CoV-2 acquired following vaccination and that following natural infection and shows that the latter is more robust, wider and more balanced regarding the production of antibodies and T cells. It also lasts longer than the vaccine-induced immunity, which translates into better and longer lasting protection against infection for individuals having recovered from COVID compared to vaccinees.
Health care workers are among those who have been most exposed to the virus so far, so it would be absurd to impose a vaccination on them when, for many of them, their natural immunity is more effective. Here too, the studies that have appeared since only confirm this analysis:
The #Covidrationnel collective in Belgium, which includes around thirty university professors, researchers and doctors, carried out a similar analysis and reached the same conclusions: https://covidrationnel.be/2021/10/06/de-source-sure/
These studies are confirmed by observations in the real world, in the jurisdictions with the highest vaccination rates such as the Seychelles, Gibraltar and Iceland. The high rate of vaccination does not prevent significant waves of infections that follow shortly the vaccination campaign.
More recently, in the city of Waterford in Ireland where 99.7% of the people over 18s are fully vaccinated, https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40704104.html , one observes the highest incidence rate in Ireland (618.9 infected per 100,000 over the last 2 weeks) https://waterford-news.ie/2021/10/11/waterford-now-has-highest-incidence-of-covid- in-ireland /.
A recent global study shows increases in COVID-19 cases are indeed unrelated to immunization levels across the world (68 countries and 2,947 counties in the United States) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/ s10654-021-00808-7 .
APPENDIX B – The Dangers of COVID vs. the Dangers of COVID Vaccination
From a public health point of view, it is not helpful to consider the general case fatality rate. Rather, it’s a question of identifying populations at risk.
a. The Dangers of COVID
The dangers of COVID are related to age and the presence of comorbidities. 99% of deaths occur in people with comorbidity, 96% in people with multiple comorbidities according to the US CDC:
COVID survival rates by age group according to Dr. Ioannidis’ team:
Age Survival rate
These figures do not distinguish COVID from other respiratory infections in terms of lethality, and therefore do not justify a different approach to manage this disease from a public health perspective. Therefore, neither the COVID Safe Ticket nor compulsory vaccination are justified from a public health point of view!
b. The Dangers of COVID Vaccination
There are excellent vaccines, with a very favorable risk-benefit ratio, against severe diseases, such as tetanus or yellow fever, for example. However, the benefit-risk ratio sometimes turns out to be unfavorable, and the vaccine in question is then withdrawn from the market.
For example, a rotavirus vaccine was taken off the market in 1999 due to only 15 cases of intussusception https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC2094741/ .
The swine flu vaccination campaign in 1976 was interrupted after 25 deaths https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2009/09/15/le-precedent-vaccinal-de-1976_1240713_3244.html . It also caused 532 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome.
What about the COVID Vaccines?
A simple correlation is not synonymous with causation. We rely on the Bradford Hill criteria, which are widely verified for these vaccines as shown below. They are:
1. Strength of the association (the larger the magnitude of the effects associated with the association, the more likely a causal link is, even if a small effect does not imply no causal link);
2. Stability of the association (its repetition in time and space)
3. Consistency (the same observations are made in different populations);
4. Specificity (a cause produces a particular effect in a particular population in the absence of other explanations);
5. Temporal relationship (temporality). The causes must precede the consequences;
6. Dose-effect relationship (a larger dose leads to a larger effect);
7. Plausibility (biological plausibility, possibility of explaining the mechanisms involved);
8. Experimental evidence (in animals or in humans);
9. Analogy (possibility of alternative explanations).
For example, temporality ( # 5 ) shows a very high incidence of death in the days following vaccination, before falling back to the normal level.
The same profile of adverse reactions is observed in Europe and the United States ( # 3 ), listed below, in decreasing order of frequency compared to their respective norm:
pulmonary embolism, stroke, deep vein thrombosis, thrombosis, increased fibrin D dimers, appendicitis, tinnitus, cardiac arrest, death, Parkinson’s disease, slow speech, aphasia (inability to speak), fatigue, pericardial effusion, headache head, chills, pericarditis, deafness, myocarditis, intracranial hemorrhage, spontaneous abortion, cough, Bell’s palsy, paresthesia, blindness, dyspnea (difficulty breathing), myalgia, dysstasia (difficulty standing), convulsions, anaphylactic reaction, suicide , speech disorder, thrombocytopenic thrombotic purpura, paralysis, swelling, diarrhea, neuropathy, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, depression.
Their number increases with the level of vaccination, and there is specificity ( # 4 ), the adverse effect profile shown above is different from that observed for influenza vaccines but is similar to the effects of COVID; also, some populations are affected differently, for example myocarditis and pericarditis affect more young men.
Biological plausibility ( # 7 ): COVID vaccines produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in our cells just as infection with the virus does, and the side effects mimic those seen in disease; the Spike protein shows in vitro intrinsic toxicity towards endothelial cells and cardiac pericytes:
Experimental evidence (animal or human, # 8 ), mouse experiments reproduce myopericarditis https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab707/6353927 .
Strength of association ( # 1 ) and stability ( # 2 ):
Report of serious adverse reactions and deaths for all COVID vaccines per million doses compared to annual influenza vaccines from 2016 to 2021, to the H1N1 strain of influenza vaccine in 2009-2010, and to all vaccines except those against COVID from 2006 to 2021 in the US VAERS system.
Analysis of VAERS data shows a much higher incidence for COVID vaccines than for influenza severe side effects (28X plus) and death (57X plus).
Absolute numbers of serious adverse reactions and deaths in VAERS for the 3 vaccines in the United States against COVID, and their ratio by number of injections.
An audit of VAERS data shows that only 14% of deaths following vaccination can be attributed to another cause; at least 67% of reports were initiated by a physician.
As the VAERS system is passive, only a small proportion of real cases are recorded there. This proportion can be estimated on the basis of a study of 64,900 employees of a Massachusetts hospital measuring the serious reactions compatible with anaphylaxis that can occur immediately after vaccination: they occurred at a rate of 2.47 per cent. 10,000 vaccinations. The incidence rate of anaphylaxis confirmed in this study is higher than that reported by the CDC on the basis of passive methods (VAERS) of spontaneous notification (0.025-0.11 per 10,000 vaccinations). https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777417
These data suggest that the under-reporting in VAERS is by a factor of between 22.5 and 98.8!
This indicates that the number of deaths exceeds 150,000 and the number of severe side effects exceeds one million in the United States.
Absolute figures of serious adverse reactions and deaths in the European Economic Area for the 4 vaccines against COVID, and their ratio by number of injections.
79% of death reports were initiated by healthcare personnel.
The official rule in pharmacovigilance: “The analysis of reported cases takes into account clinical, chronological, semiological and pharmacological data. It may lead to the vaccine’s responsibility for the occurrence of an observed adverse event being dismissed as soon as another, certain cause is identified. “
When autopsies, which are too rarely done, are performed, between 30 and 100% of deaths are attributable to vaccination. Peter Schirmacher, chief pathologist at Heidelberg University, determined that autopsy reports indicate that, conservatively, at least 30-40% of a sample of 40 people who died within two weeks of vaccination actually died from the vaccine. https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/126061/Heidelberger-Pathologe-pocht-auf-mehr-Obduktionen-von-Geimpften .
Professors Arne Burkhardt and Walter Lang, forensic pathologists, presented the results of ten autopsies in Reutlingen on Monday, September 20. Of the ten deaths, seven are “probably” related to the injections, of which five are “very likely”. For the last three cases, one of them remains to be evaluated, another seems to be “a coincidence”, and for the last, the link “is possible but not certain”. https://tinyurl.com/3b779fer .
In Norway, when 23 deaths following vaccination occurred in an EHPAD, the authorities carried out 13 autopsies and these 13 deaths were found to be linked to vaccination https://norwaytoday.info/news/norwegian-medicines-agency- links-13-deaths-to-vaccine-side-effects-those-who-died-were-frail-and-old/ .
A French drug assessment center concluded that COVID vaccination should be discontinued https://tinyurl.com/2s64aenn , for all 4 products. And the Moderna vaccine is abandoned by some countries for the youngest (Norway, Sweden, Denmark; France for the second dose).
See also: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354601308_Paradoxes_in_the_reporting_of_Covid19_vaccine_effectiveness_Why_current_studies_for_or_against_vaccination_cannot_be_trusted_and_what_out_weit_do_usted_and_whatab_out_can_do_
Finally, in an article titled “Why are we vaccinating children against COVID?” », the authors conclude that not only is their vaccination contraindicated, but that even for the most vulnerable subjects over 65 years of age, the risk-benefit analysis shows that there are 5 times more deaths attributable to vaccination. than to disease https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X .
It is against bioethics and the law to vaccinate groups of individuals who were excluded from phase 3 clinical trials, especially those under the age of 18. https://medcritic.fr/la-vaccination-des-enfants-contre-le-covid19-1/ :
Society, by vaccinating children, puts them at risk in order to protect adults without considering their well-being, while it is the responsibility of adults to protect themselves.
It is also not only incorrect that the delta variant would be more dangerous for children https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.06.21264467v1 , but data from the British National Statistics Office (ONS) indicates a 46% increase in deaths in the 15-19 age group since their vaccination was authorized (+ 63% in young men, + 16% in young women # 4 ), compared to the same period in 2020. https://theexpose.uk/2021/09/30/deaths-among-teenagers-have-increased-by-47-percent-since-covid-vaccination-began/ .
This letter, dated October 17, is translated from French and reproduced with permission from a post on LinkedIn. Please refer to the original version in French for any formal reference.
Addendum; New Research Confirms Substantially Elevated Cardiovascular Risks
I am discussing here an abstract entitled “Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning”, by the group of Dr. Steven R. Gundry, an eminent cardiologist.
Source : Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning, by Steven R Gundry, publié le 8 Novembre 2021 dans le journal prestigieux Circulation. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712
This group of researchers are using a validated test, which is based on biological markers and which can predict the risk of an acute coronary syndrome within 5 years. This study concerns a population of 566 individuals aged 28 to 97 years, followed for 8 years already in a longitudinal study, a type of study which allows researchers to detect evolutions or changes in the characteristics of the target population at the same time at the group level and at the individual level.
The risk of a 5-year cardiac event observed before vaccination was 11% over this 8-year period. After the COVID vaccination, this risk rose to 25%, which is a huge increase!
This is not about comparing groups of individuals as in a randomized controlled trial, which may introduce confounding factors. As each patient serves as his own control, these confounding factors are eliminated and the results obtained are therefore very robust. These clinical observations are consistent with pharmacovigilance data which show a dramatic increase in thrombosis, cardiomyopathy and other vascular events following vaccination.
At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months after the second dose of vaccine. If these changes were to persist over time, we can expect a veritable epidemic of heart attacks in the years to come, in the order of many tens of thousand heart attacks above the norm over 5 years for a country the size of Belgium.
These changes may subside in the months that follow, but in all likelihood taking any additional dose could only increase the risk of acute coronary syndrome even further.
There is only one conclusion: it is absolutely necessary to stop the vaccination campaign. And for those who are already vaccinated, it is important not to do a third dose. Primum non nocere: first do no harm. Let us remember that an acute coronary syndrome is fatal 90% of the time!
Below is the original abstract reproduced in its entirety:
Our group has been using the PULS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences, Inc, Irvine, CA) a clinically validated measurement of multiple protein biomarkers which generates a score predicting the 5 yr risk (percentage chance) of a new Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). The score is based on changes from the norm of multiple protein biomarkers including IL-16, a proinflammatory cytokine, soluble Fas, an inducer of apoptosis, and Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF)which serves as a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue, among other markers. Elevation above the norm increases the PULS score, while decreases below the norm lowers the PULS score.The score has been measured every 3-6 months in our patient population for 8 years. Recently, with the advent of the mRNA COVID 19 vaccines (vac) by Moderna and Pfizer, dramatic changes in the PULS score became apparent in most patients.This report summarizes those results. A total of 566 pts, aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen in a preventive cardiology practice had a new PULS test drawn from 2 to 10 weeks following the 2nd COVID shot and was compared to the previous PULS score drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre- shot. Baseline IL-16 increased from 35+/-20 above the norm to 82 +/- 75 above the norm post-vac; sFas increased from 22+/- 15 above the norm to 46+/-24 above the norm post-vac; HGF increased from 42+/-12 above the norm to 86+/-31 above the norm post-vac. These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac.We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.