Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

New Swiss study shows that 1 in 35 people who received the Moderna Covid booster had detectable heart injuries

By Murray Hunter - posted Monday, 31 July 2023

A new peer reviewed study, Sex-specific differences in myocardial injury incidence after COVID-19 mRNA-1273 Booster Vaccination, published in European Journal of Heart Failure and authored by a research team at the Department of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research Institute in Basel found in an independently funded study of 777 participants that 2.8 percent of vaccine recipients had vaccine associated myocardial injuries.

This is one of the few studies which has followed a cohort of those who received the Moderna Covid vaccine, rather than relying upon historical data, which has been found to underestimate adverse effect.


This study conducted tests upon 777 employees at the University Hospital Basel, from December 2021 to February 2022. The employees who received the mRNA booster, were asked to undertake a blood test for troponin levels three days after receiving the booster. The level of troponin is a marker of heart damage. The group tested were a healthy cohort with few preexisting heart problems, with an average age of 37, where 69.5% were women.

The results showed that 40 of the vaccine recipients had highly elevated troponin levels, above the 99th percentile for average men and women.

In addition, the researchers reported that 20 of the injured recipients were women, while only two were men. Even adjusting for the fact that more women were tested, women were almost five times as likely to have elevated troponin.

Other studies have shown that young men are at the highest risk from mRNA-caused myocarditis and pericarditis, or acute heart inflammation, following the vaccines. However, this study suggests women may be suffering more subtle damage.

The conclusion of the study found that “mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated myocardial injury was more common than previously thought, being mild and transient, and more frequent in women versus men. The possible protective role of IFN-λ1(IL-29) and GM-CSF warrant further studies”.

The study contradicts the World Health Organization (WHO) advice that Safe and effective vaccines are available that provide strong protection against serious illness, hospitalization and death from COVID-19”.

The question is why were safety studies like the one not undertaken before the product was submitted to various national pharmaceutical regulatory bodies for approval? In addition, why didn’t pharmaceutical regulatory authorities undertake active surveillance of the vaccines that were only given “Emergency use listings” in most countries, after the product was dispensed into the community?

This research paper has been published for more than a week, yet the mainstream media has not taken the issue up. This research may be partly able to shed some light upon the “sudden death syndrome’ of athletes around the world over the past couple of years, and the unusual high rates of excess deaths around the world, over the last 18 months.

This study radically changes the risk/benefit analysis for mRNA vaccines, and public health authorities should reconsider their advice. Current vaccine programs are violating patients’ rights to  informed consent, by not divulging such details.

The factcheckers have jumped in to rebuke this research paper. However, the advice of prominent health researchers should be accepted above journalists, who claim to be medical experts.




  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

This article was first published on Murray Hunter.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

8 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Murray Hunter is an associate professor at the University Malaysia Perlis. He blogs at Murray Hunter.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Murray Hunter

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Murray Hunter
Article Tools
Comment 8 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy