A peer-reviewed medical paper published in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Research and Innovation presents what one expert called “probably the most definitive paper yet” on myocarditis risk associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
The 43-page open-access study, with 341 references, synthesises a vast body of literature across clinical trials, post-marketing surveillance, epidemiology, and immunology. It concludes with an unambiguous call: that governments should remove COVID-19 mRNA products from the market due to the well-documented risk of myocardial damage, particularly in males under 40.
The review was highlighted by UK researcher Dr. John Campbell, who praised the academic quality and scope of the work. “It ties everything together,” he said. “The amount of referencing and scholarship is really quite impressive.”
In the paper’s conclusion, the authors call for urgent regulatory action, stating:
“We urge governments to remove the COVID-19 mRNA products from the market… due to the well-documented risk of myocardial damage, a risk that is strongest for young males under 40 years of age.”
Spike in Reported Adverse Events
Campbell opened his video with a striking visual: the 2021 spike in U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data, shown in a chart displaying all adverse events from 1990 to 2024. He pointed out the disproportionate number of reports in 2021 – the year of the vaccine rollout.
“There were more vaccines given during that time,” he acknowledged, “but the amount of adverse events reported is massively disproportionate.”
One VAERS chart showed more than 10,500 deaths reported in 2021, a number Campbell said was “completely unacceptable.”
He noted that while mRNA COVID vaccines were administered 2.3 times more often than flu vaccines, they produced 6.2 times more types of adverse reactions. “That tells me the mRNA vaccines are having adverse effects on more systems of the body than conventional vaccines,” Campbell said.
Another graph showed adverse events themselves – not just types – were 118 times higher for the mRNA vaccines than for influenza vaccines. Based on the increased number of doses alone, Campbell said the figure “should be 2.3, not 118.”
“These are totally unacceptable numbers of adverse reactions in my view,” he said.
Cardiologist Calls for Transparency
The study also caught the attention of Fox News, which called it “groundbreaking” and said it “directly challenges claims from public health officials.” The network said the data “raise urgent questions about transparency and trust.”
Appearing in a television segment, Dr. Kurt Milhoan, a senior fellow in paediatrics and cardiology with the Independent Medical Alliance, added:
“Multiple research reports show that heart inflammation risks tied to the vaccines may be far greater – and maybe even more dangerous – than previously reported, particularly among young men.”
Campbell echoed this concern, stating: “I don’t think mRNA vaccines should be currently being given to human beings or anyone for that matter at the moment – until we know an awful lot more.”
Comprehensive Literature Review
The paper, titled “Myocarditis After SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 Vaccination: Epidemiology, Outcomes and New Perspectives,” brings together diverse data sources. Its aim is to compare the risks of myocarditis from natural infection versus those from vaccination, while also exploring immune responses and long-term outcomes.
Key insights include:
- mRNA vaccines were associated with a greater range of adverse reactions than traditional vaccines.
- Reported rates of myocarditis were highest in young males, particularly after the second dose.
- Despite widespread rollout, many public health bodies downplayed or delayed acknowledging the risks.
Campbell said the paper’s comprehensive nature sets it apart. “It’s a very, very nice piece of work,” he said. “They’ve tied together everything—clinical trial data, post-marketing surveillance, large observational studies.”
Final Word
While the paper does not dismiss vaccine efficacy outright, its focus on cardiac adverse effects – especially myocarditis in younger males – has reignited debate around safety, risk assessment, and public health transparency.
“This is not anti-vaccine,” Campbell said. “This is pro-safety, pro-transparency, and pro-accountability.”
