Is there a link between vaccines and an increase in heart attacks among young people
Recently, Prof. Retzaf Levy published a study summary entitled “25% increase in cardiac arrest and heart attacks among 16-29 year olds. Over 83% increase in heart attacks among women aged 20-29, correlated with corona vaccines.” To date, the article, including the methods and details of the results, has not been published on any public platform, and no further details have been released about it, so everything written here relates to the overt information which it would be good to share regarding this study.These are the main findings that emerge from Prof. Levy’s research:

  • There is an increase in calls for MDA against the background of cardiac events, in conjunction with the vaccination campaign.
  • There is an increase in heart attacks in conjunction with the vaccination campaign.
  • Myocarditis and cardiac events are probably the mediating factor between the vaccine and MDA calls.
  • Among young ages, there is an increase in excess mortality in the first 5 months of 2021, again in conjunction with the vaccination campaign.

In order to strengthen his findings, the author emphasizes that the increase in mortality is more significant as one decreases with age, and this finding is consistent with the CBS reports of a significant increase, especially at younger ages.

According to him, the risk exists not only among healthy populations but also among recovering people. That is, the author navigates the text so that it can be concluded that the vaccine is dangerous wherever it is, and to reinforce this he points to the proven and known link between the vaccine and the risk of heart infection, noting that in the literature myocarditis is a difficult diagnosis and suggesting Heart failure is expected in young people, thus weaving the link between vaccination and the risk of cardiac events and excess mortality.


Prof. Sezaf Levy

It should already be clarified at this stage: it is accepted by all the important health organizations in the world that the vaccines are safe, and the proven benefit in them outweighs the theoretical risks that may exist. But at the same time – the collection of safety data continues even after the end of clinical trials, as is customary from day to day. This is how it should be, and it is well done.

Levy, is a professor at the School of Management at MIT University in Boston, and holds a doctorate in performance research from Cornell University and Major (Res.) In the field of special operations in the Intelligence Corps. According to the “Corona Public Crisis Emergency Council” of which he is a member, Levy is an “expert in systemic risk management, development and implementation of analytics models for risk forecasting in government bodies and health care.

Although Levy has made public unequivocal statements about the findings of the work, an in-depth reading of the material available raises some issues both with regard to the interpretation attached to it and with regard to the feasibility of the results.

First, it is important to note that this is not a research or academic paper. This is a 4-page PDF file (of which 1 is a resume page), which contains 2 data tables with a discussion of the interpretation of the findings according to the author’s view. This work does not have a research structure (abstract, methodology, statistical analyzes, etc.), it has not been peer-reviewed, and there is nothing in it that can be deduced with its help about the process that led to its writing.

Does the corona vaccine increase the risk of heart disease?

Selection of observation periods

Even before dealing with the data themselves it is worth mentioning that the study is observational, that is, based on data collection without the intervention or control of important variables beyond the time period in the year. In the context of dealing with infectious diseases, it is of utmost importance to discuss limitations related to the time dimension in research, as different periods are affected by different processes in reality which occur in parallel and may affect interest measurements.

Furthermore, the considerations regarding the division of time of the study are not specified:

  • The period January-May 2021 is compared to January-May 2019. The calendar resemblance is not a sufficient reason. Why 2019 and not another year or an average of previous years? And why examine periods when morbidity levels are different?
  • Why was the interest period set from January 1, if the vaccination campaign started as early as December (health workers in early December, and the general public towards the end of December)?
  • The author notes that there are 10 months of epidemic (two waves), but he refers in surgery to only half of them (January to May) while ignoring the most significant wave that was until the start of vaccinations.

There is concern that the choice of periods (to which the data refer) affects the result, because:

  • Included was the first wave in which there was a relatively small number of infected.
  • Excluded was the second wave (starting in June until the tight closure on September 25) in which there was significant morbidity in Corona but no vaccines available.
  • Includes the period of rocket barrages from Gaza (May 10 to around May 21), an event that by all accounts may affect the proportion of people who apply to MDA (and also go through cardiac events).

The choice of the above periods produces the same comparison only superficially (in terms of the months of the year), but really not in terms of the circumstances and conditions.

The author tries to show that there is an increase in the rate of reports compared to the first wave in which there were no vaccines, but since we lack reference to the second wave which also had high morbidity without vaccines, it is impossible to really ignore the theoretical effect of the disease itself on readings. The rockets and the security situation in the country at that time. We also know that the illness itself may be accompanied by cardiac events.

When crossing the time periods with the waves of morbidity one can see the problematic, as illustrated in the following graph:

Graph courtesy of Dr. Yuval Harpaz

Calls to MDA are not heartbreaking

Another limitation has to do with the data itself. The author of the article does not emphasize enough that there is a gap between “readings to MDA” and “real heart events”, and that only a very small number of readings turn out to be true events. Chest pain, only about 8% are found to have a real event, with longer follow-ups showing that the risk of significant cardiac events among those complaining of chest pain is only about 7% after a two-year follow-up. The above information was appropriate at least Note, but for his own reasons Levy chose not to do so.

Were the patients vaccinated?

Even assuming that indeed every reading reflects a true event of cardiac arrest, there is no detail about the immune status of the people who called MDA. It is quite possible that they were vaccinated. Assume that they will also be the vast majority of MDA applicants, simply because they are the majority of the population in the country.

In order to assess the risk among the vaccinated, a relative risk or cross-risk analysis for reading MDA among the vaccinated should be performed, compared with the risk of a cardiac event among the vaccinated or the general population as in previous studies, taking into account other explanatory variables. Economics, medical status and of course the possibility that some of the complainants were exposed to Corona.

In the absence of information about the rate of Expected Cases, there is no real ability to assess the significance of the Observed Cases in terms of increased morbidity. In other words, we do not know how many cases to expect, so what do the number of cases collected in the study tell us? If there is no “hard” finding of a true event or reference to the status of immunization or infection, we have no way of concluding what the true rate of cardiac events, certainly among vaccinators who make up the vast majority of the population.

Has an increase in mortality been detected?

Another argument that emerges in the text is that in the first five months of 2021 there was a significant increase in mortality, especially at young ages. If we ignore for a moment the fact that no numbers are attached that can be discussed that substantiate the claim – not of an absolute number, not of a relative number and not in a sectoral or gender division – we must remember that the period in question is characterized by the opening of the economy after the third closure. Over 20 deaths due to road accidents among young people during this period. Many murders were also recorded among young people in the Arab sector, including the Mount Meron disaster in which 34 children and young people from the age of thirty were killed.

Myocarditis – Mild cases after vaccination

The author notes the risk of myocarditis after vaccination and creates the connection between immunization and cardiac arrest when the mediating factor is myocarditis. Clinical myocarditis is indeed a life-threatening condition, but its occurrence against the background of coronary heart disease is estimated at the upper limit in about 1,200 cases per million infected in corona.



However, a huge study from Israel based on Clalit’s database found that the vast majority of cases of this unpleasant medical condition were either mild or moderate (76% and 22% respectively) with no long-term consequences or special problems. A study led by Prof. Dror Mevorach found that the rate of mild cases after vaccination was 95%.

In contrast, a huge study based on a database from the British Ministry of Health found that the rate of myocarditis events after corona disease ranges around 5% and patients who reach this condition are at a 36% higher risk of mortality in 6 months of follow-up.

The above findings are inconsistent with the implicit assumption in the text that the readings to MDA are indeed heartfelt events, and the fact that a researcher does not present findings of other works that contradict his findings is something that is to say very, very unacceptable in scientific publications, all the more so as he does not provide A possible alternative to why his findings are different from what has been discovered to date.


To sum up: this work is not a study but a draft, does not publish the data on which it relies nor the methods and research tools used. There are too many assumptions based on logical leaps and problematic data selection, to say the least.

The FDA and CDC advisory committees were given a great deal of information, including the author’s appearance before the Israeli committee, and still considered it appropriate to recommend the vaccine approval, which also led to the approval of the children’s vaccines by the two organizations. The possible and rare that involves vaccinating young people and children. The benefit of preventing coronary heart disease and its known effects outweighs the potential risks associated with immunization.

It should also be emphasized that the alternative choice of not getting vaccinated is “nothing” but will most likely result in infection at an earlier or later stage, when this possibility itself carries with it a high risk of cardiovascular problems. This is the case with a draft study based on database analysis that raised a 21-fold higher risk of an initial occurrence of arterial thrombosis or a 33-fold increase in venous thrombosis in the first week after coronary heart disease, and additional work that found a nearly 3-fold higher risk of myocardial infarction or stroke the following week. infection.

Eshed Lin, an epidemiologist with a master’s degree in public health research

These are the complete data published by the Ministry of Health in response to Prof. Sefer Levy’s research.

Public Emergency Council Response to Corona Crisis:

The author probably never read the full article written by Professor Levy, who is a full professor at MIT University in Boston with a record of dozens of articles in leading academic journals in the world. The article was written in collaboration with a postdoctoral fellow working in Professor Levy’s research group and MDA’s VP of Research.

The full study sent to the Ministry of Health is based on MDA data on readiness diagnoses of field crews after the incident. He analyzes a period of two and a half years that includes 2019, 2020 and the first half of 2021. The analysis is of the entire period without any selective choice as the author claims.

The study points to facts. There has been an increase in MDA calls for cardiac arrest and heart attacks among young people (16-39) since the beginning of 2021, with a statistical correlation (not equivalent to a causal link) observed with the vaccine operation at these ages. There is also another increase seen in the correlation to the onset of recovering vaccines. The main message of the article is that there are alarming data and he calls for checking them including a possible link to the vaccine, the coronary epidemic and other possible causes. Is the writer not worried about an increase in MDA calls for cardiac arrest?

The study also discusses all the possible limitations of the data on which it is based, which in the absence of transparency of the Ministry of Health and accessibility of the data on its part, are the most reliable information currently available.

Perhaps it is fitting that instead of attacking the research he did not read, the author will join the effort to persuade the Ministry of Health to publish all those data that he rightly claims are missing in sections 8-11. The study in particular calls on the Ministry of Health to examine these data and make them accessible transparently, especially since there have already been statements in the media of hospitals in Israel about a significant increase in cardiac symptoms among young people in the first quarter of 2021.

Needless to say, in 2021 there will be an excess of unexplained mortality in Corona mortality in various age groups, which on the face of it appears to be in disturbing proximity to vaccine operations. An increase in cardiac, neurological, and non-coronary excess mortality has recently been reported by the health authorities of a large number of countries, including England, Germany, Scotland, and Austria.

Professor Levy is vaccinated, a major supporter of vaccines and as a global expert in risk management, health and safety systems and the production of biological drugs he believes in a scientific approach to data to understand the benefits and risks of medical treatments. He will be happy to meet with the author of the article or any other factor in Mako to share insights from the research and answer further questions.

By Editor

Leave a Reply