Study links mRNA vaccines to severe heart attacks in infected

Forum user: "Severe heart attacks rise among vaccinated"

A forum user is circulating a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Vaccine, led by cardiologist Ana Blasco from Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda Hospital. The research suggests that people who contracted elbichito after receiving one or more doses of mRNA vaccines face an "enormously higher" risk of suffering a severe heart attack. Attributed to science communicator Frank Bergman, this data has peine the debate on vaccine side effects and pandemic management. However, the discussion extends beyond the study itself, drifting into political accountability, censorship on social media, and the excess mortality Spain has suffered since 2020.

What the study says about heart attacks and vaccines

The work, a retrospective single-center cohort study involving **963 patients** with cardiac issues, found, according to those spreading it, that vaccinated individuals who later had the infection had a worse prognosis than unvaccinated ones. Publication in Vaccine has been used as ammunition by those questioning the mass immunization campaign. "Severe heart attacks continue to increase among those who have received at least one dose," Bergman summarizes in a note that has circulated online.

Reaction was immediate. Some point out that "enormously higher" is not a scientific unit of measurement and that the study, being retrospective and single-center, has methodological limitations. Others recall that the vaccine was administered when the bicho had already been circulating for a year and that high-risk groups had already been decimated. The controversy is set: while some demand a review of recommendations, others defend that the risk-benefit balance remains favorable.

Excess mortality that does not return to 2019 figures

Beyond the study, the thread focuses on an uncomfortable data point: **in 2020 there was an excess mortality of around 80,000 people** compared to 2019, according to a calculation circulating in the debate. Since then, Spain has not recovered pre-pandemic figures. "There are no balls to return to 2019 figures," one participant summarizes, adding that what would be expected after an excess is a period of mortality below average, not stagnant above it.

The official explanation points to elbichito, but the debate gets tangled with the lack of disaggregated data. **The government is the sole custodian of vaccination status and causes of death**, it is argued, and death certificates do not always detail whether the deceased was vaccinated or not. This opacity fuels all kinds of theories, from the most well-founded to the most conspiratorial.

De facto mandatory vaccination and treatment of the unvaccinated

The conversation shifts to political management. **Salvador Illa stated that "no one was forced to get vaccinated"**, a declaration many interpret as an attempt to dodge responsibility. In parallel, it is recalled that the unvaccinated were excluded from social life, treated like lepers, and in some cases publicly shamed. "No one was forced, but those of us who didn't comply were pushed out of society," one intervention summarizes.

The discomfort is not only health-related, but also economic: **self-employed workers paid nearly 500 euros a month to go to work without having invoiced**, it is denounced, and mobility and gathering restrictions were applied with criteria many consider illegal. The sense of grievance persists years later and explains why any news about adverse vaccine effects finds fertile ground.

The role of media and censorship of critical voices

The thread also targets media and communicators who amplified the official message. **It is criticized that pro-vaccine campaigns were run without nuances** and that those warning of possible side effects were labeled as cranks or deniers. "Everyone ran pro-vaccine campaigns, so now they will be purging their sins," reads one intervention.

Distrust towards institutions is deep. **The case of Pharmamar's CEO** is mentioned, who allegedly paid for him and his family to be recorded as vaccinated, as proof that even the promoters did not believe the discourse. The anecdote, true or not, circulates as an example of double standards.

The debate on side effects in Europe

European data also enters the fray. **More than one in six Germans has experienced side effects related to the vaccine**, according to a representative survey by the Forsa institute circulated online. The figure is used to underline that adverse effects are not a rarity nor an invention of critics.

In Spain, the European Medicines Agency accumulates thousands of notifications of adverse effects, although most are mild. The problem, some point out, is that **there is no public and accessible registry crossing vaccination with subsequent pathologies**, which prevents independent analysis. Without that data, the debate remains trapped between faith in authorities and permanent suspicion.

---

The matter remains unresolved. The Vaccine study adds another data point, but does not close the fundamental question: to what extent has mass vaccination had a health cost that is not being measured? As long as there is no transparency, each new report will be interpreted according to one's trench.