studies-using-smart-wearables-to-monitor-covid-vaccine-reactions-show-significant-change-in-nearly-all-recorded-vital-signs-in-days-following-injection

Studies Using Smart ‘Wearables’ to Monitor COVID ‘Vaccine’ Reactions Show ‘Significant Change’ in ‘Nearly All’ Recorded Vital Signs In Days Following Injection


TOP LINE

Two papers published in npj Digital Medicine and Communications Medicine, which both used smart “wearables” to monitor mRNA COVID “vaccine” recipients, found “significant changes” in “nearly all” recorded vital signs in the 24-48 hour period following injection. Amongst the changes in vitals were a near 10% increase in heart rate, a near 4% increase in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and a greater than 10% increase in cardiac output. The effects were more often observed in younger people, and were “more apparent” at night.


The connection between the enormously dangerous and utterly ineffective COVID-19 “vaccines” and negative effects on the heart is overwhelming. Peer-reviewed autopsy studies reveal a causal relationship between the injections and deaths from sudden cardiac arrest, and there are, of course, ample reports of myocarditis. When scientists have deployed smart “wearables” to monitor people’s vital signs after “vaccination,” an obvious and “significant” change in heart rate, cardiac output, and blood pressure have all appeared as well. Along with significant changes in “nearly all” other vital signs recorded.

Two papers published in npj Digital Medicine and Communications Medicine are two clear examples of wearable data revealing stark and abrupt changes in cardiovascular function in the days following COVID “vaccination.” Including amongst those who believed themselves to be “asymptomatic” after receiving their injections.

Image: Yftach Gepner, et al. / Communications Medicine

In the Communications Medicine study scientists including Yftach Gepner, et al., equipped 160 recipients of Pfizer’s COVID injection—age 18 and older and who were not previously found to be COVID-19 positive—with chest-patch sensors. The authors used the sensors and a paired mobile app to collect data on 13 different cardiovascular and hemodynamic vitals, including: heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse pressure, mean arterial pressure, heart rate variability, stroke volume, cardiac output, cardiac index, systemic vascular resistance and skin temperature. 

As shown in the figures from the study immediately above, the study’s authors found “continuous and significant changes following vaccine administration in nearly all vitals” amongst participants in the 72-hour period after “vaccination” versus the 24-hour period prior to “vaccination.”

At their peak, the authors say that Pfizer’s injection caused recipients’ heart rate to increase by 9.85%; systolic blood pressure to increase by 3.91%; and diastolic blood pressure to increase by 3.78%. (Systolic and diastolic pressure indicate how much blood is in a body’s arteries while the heart is pumping and at rest, respectively.)

Image: Yftach Gepner, et al. / Communications Medicine

Along with the changes in heart rate and blood pressure, the chest monitors also picked up, on average, an increase in respiratory rate of more than 5% (lasting for multiple days); a more than 10% increase in cardiac output; and a more than 5% drop in vascular resistance. (Vascular resistance is the resistance that must be overcome to push blood through the circulatory system and create flow.)

On top of the significant changes in vital signs, many participants in the study also reported local and systemic reactions, including fatigue (30% on day 2); headache (more than 20% on day 2); muscle pain (more than 20% on day 2); and fever (almost 20% on day 2).

While the Communications Medicine study concludes that all participants’ vital signs returned to baseline by the end of the three-day period, it’s obviously impossible to say if the effects returned some time down the line. Especially if anybody decided to get “boosters.” Worryingly, the scientists also note that “Changes in vitals [were] more apparent at night, in younger participants, and in participants following the second vaccine dose.”

Image: Giorgio Quer, et al. / npj Digital Medicine

In the study published in npj Digital Medicine Giorgio Quer, et al. used a smartphone app-based research platform that enabled 39,701 participants to share their smartwatch data, as well as self-report, when appropriate, any symptoms, COVID-19 test results, and vaccination information. The authors collected daily wearable sensor data from the two-weeks before and after each vaccination dose from 7,298 volunteers who reported receiving at least one dose of the vaccine (6,803 received both doses of a mRNA vaccine).

“We found that in most individuals, resting heart rate (RHR) increased with respect to their individual baseline after vaccination, peaked on day 2, and returned to normal by day 6” the authors report. Quer, et al. note that the RHR was “greater than one standard deviation above individuals’ normal daily pattern in 47% of participants after their second vaccine dose.” They add that “The average RHR did not return to baseline until day 4 after the first dose and day 6 after the second.”

Image: Giorgio Quer, et al. / npj Digital Medicine

As the figures immediately above and below show, Quer, et al. recorded their participants taking, on average, more than 1,600 fewer steps than the baseline rate the day after receiving their second dose of Pfizer’s injection. They also experienced a noticeable uptick in the amount of time they slept, gaining an average of 35 minutes of sleep time.

The two studies taken together paint a clear and complete picture of COVID “vaccine” recipients experiencing stark and prevalent changes in cardiovascular function in the 24-48 hour period following “vaccination” with an mRNA COVID injection; particularly after the second jab. The data from these two studies also reiterate COVID “vaccine” side effects that are widely acknowledged—such as fever, headache, and fatigue—but also serve to reveal a potentially concerning relationship between them and significant changes in vital signs. Especially considering the changes in vitals happen at night, when recipients are sleeping off their COVID-like symptoms.

Perhaps just as problematic as the actual findings of these studies are their use of wearables and apps to collect data on participants. While the idea is benign enough per se, it’s easy to imagine an abuse of this technology for invasive monitoring of individuals’ health. Pfizer whistleblower Brook Jackson, for example, noted on Twitter on January 9 of this year that Moderna is conducting clinical trials using “a wireless wearable digital device” in order to “explore the physiological & behavioral impact of the immune response to an mRNA ‘vaccine’.” Jackson, who’s suing the pharma giant for bungling its COVID injection clinical trials at three sites in Texas, adds that “They want to establish your daily patterns.”

To what ends “they” want to establish those patterns? One can only imagine… .


Feature image: Ankush Minda / Unsplash

(Visited 280 times, 15 visits today)

Accessibility Toolbar