A new study suggests a higher rate of heart damage than previously reported from the COVID vaccines, although there's a lot that seems to be problematic with this study.
Honestly, the more I think about this study the more issues I have with it. It was essentially a study that could never set out to substantiate anything when the thing that only happened was that they measured troponin levels. I believe some people mentioned that they didn't want the employees to engage in strenuous exercise in case of myocarditis, but I think it's more that they didn't want to include another variable in the elevated troponin levels. It seems that exercise can increase troponin.
The other factors just seem like a random hodgepodge where they just found biomarkers and likely chose things that showed statistical significance, even if they may not mean much.
It actually ends up being far more disappointing the more I think about it.
Well, unfortunately this is where we can go down two different routes of this poor study. I think they really just wanted to do a heart study without doing any actual heavy lifting. If employees were asked to provide biopsies it likely meant they would be taken out of work for quite some time, so they seemed to not want to impede on hospital operations, but if that's your position early on then why even bother doing this study?
Thank you for referencing your prior article discussing SFN. My dad (77) has had all the Moderna and at least one Pfizer because the Modernas made him feel horrible. I'm not sure when the latest one was, but he's recently developed numbness in his feet. A neurologist dismissed it as nothing, but now I'm wondering if he could have vaccine-induced SFN. Not that he or any of his drs would listen to me if I suggested it, sadly.
I'm sorry that has happened to your dad Paula! At least in the case of SFN it's getting more mainstream attention, although even still it doesn't mean most doctors will bother doing tests. Hopefully it's nothing that can be addressed. In the case reports shown it suggests that it may take months before any possible return, so it may take time if caused by the vaccines. Otherwise, hopefully more doctors will at least be more open to considering the vaccines as a possibility.
I am interpreting all I have read … that the problem comes with booster shots, either because they are bivalent or because of cumulative vaccine effects or ….. ???
From what I can tell the unfortunate answer is that it depends. We saw a lot of adverse reactions occurring prior to the boosters. The problem is determining whether the adverse reactions are solely spike related, which may be more likely with the early doses, or if it's related to autoimmune disease which may be supported by the later doses and the reported IgG4 conversion. This doesn't take into account other variables either, so there's really a lot that has left to be unanswered.
With myocarditis many of the reports come from after the first or second dose. This study in particular is a booster study. The problem with a booster study is that it may be biased by "adverse event bias" so to speak. If you look at the initial clinical trials for the vaccines there was a suspected healthy user bias where people who were able to get the vaccines were likely to be more healthy in general, and so any complications recorded would be considered minimal.
An adverse event bias, I would argue, would suggest that people who have adverse reactions are likely to not receive subsequent doses (at least, we would hope not!), and so any booster study has to take into account that some of these people are likely to not have had adverse reactions previously and may not, at least to some degree experience it in the future. It's possible that any adverse reaction recorded at that point is likely to be autoimmune in nature (again, a speculation).
Sorry if it all sounds confusing, there's a lot of nuance that needs to be looked at with these studies and reports. When looking at any adverse event it's important to keep track of the doses, the type of vaccine, and what those adverse reactions are.
I agree. It really seems like a preliminary study or idea. It opened the door a crack. There are many questions that can be asked from their presentation. I didn’t mean it as a Debbie Downer. You brought up other aspects that need to be followed up on. Isn’t that how we used to do scientific research. It’s exciting.
"it’s important to emphasize that any myocardial injury measured in this study was suspected based upon troponin levels alone."
Isn't that the standard method though? Now it's not good enough?
If troponin levels were NOT raised you can guarantee this would be declared as loud proof of no heart injury, but when the classic symptom of heart injury IS present, you don't think it's good enough data, too vague?
I mean, it COULD be climate change, right? And eating meat. And not voting right. So self-inflicted really, and the antivaxxers' own fault? That'll teach em!
Sure, troponin levels point to something, but most studies also follow up with imaging or even biopsies like I mentioned above. This study failed to conduct any of those, they didn't even get baseline troponin levels so we can't even argue what the original values were, they note that one person showed an increase in troponin at follow up but then didn't do anything else about it (why didn't this person have imaging done?).
The study ends up being more issues than just measuring troponin because it ends up not telling us much, and in fact when they throw in the exclusion for those with possible chronic cardiovascular disease then it makes their interpretation even worse.
After all this is said, the researchers simultaneously state that possible myocardial damage may have taken place but that it was mild, and yet nothing else seems to have been done.
The rest of your comment is an unnecessary tangent that bears no relevancy to this article. Either the researchers undertake a study and commit to making sure their study is sound or it's flawed. We can't milk this study for whatever we want from it.
I wonder if the vagueness of this study, as you allude to, is due to a bias towards not discouraging booster uptake.
As they pointed out.
After all if those conducting the study don’t want to discourage booster uptake. Then they need a lot a wiggle room in data assessment.
Honestly, the more I think about this study the more issues I have with it. It was essentially a study that could never set out to substantiate anything when the thing that only happened was that they measured troponin levels. I believe some people mentioned that they didn't want the employees to engage in strenuous exercise in case of myocarditis, but I think it's more that they didn't want to include another variable in the elevated troponin levels. It seems that exercise can increase troponin.
The other factors just seem like a random hodgepodge where they just found biomarkers and likely chose things that showed statistical significance, even if they may not mean much.
It actually ends up being far more disappointing the more I think about it.
I had that same thought. I wondered if these folks were “handcuffed”. Is anything at best it’s a pilot study.
Well, unfortunately this is where we can go down two different routes of this poor study. I think they really just wanted to do a heart study without doing any actual heavy lifting. If employees were asked to provide biopsies it likely meant they would be taken out of work for quite some time, so they seemed to not want to impede on hospital operations, but if that's your position early on then why even bother doing this study?
Thank you for referencing your prior article discussing SFN. My dad (77) has had all the Moderna and at least one Pfizer because the Modernas made him feel horrible. I'm not sure when the latest one was, but he's recently developed numbness in his feet. A neurologist dismissed it as nothing, but now I'm wondering if he could have vaccine-induced SFN. Not that he or any of his drs would listen to me if I suggested it, sadly.
I'm sorry that has happened to your dad Paula! At least in the case of SFN it's getting more mainstream attention, although even still it doesn't mean most doctors will bother doing tests. Hopefully it's nothing that can be addressed. In the case reports shown it suggests that it may take months before any possible return, so it may take time if caused by the vaccines. Otherwise, hopefully more doctors will at least be more open to considering the vaccines as a possibility.
I am interpreting all I have read … that the problem comes with booster shots, either because they are bivalent or because of cumulative vaccine effects or ….. ???
From what I can tell the unfortunate answer is that it depends. We saw a lot of adverse reactions occurring prior to the boosters. The problem is determining whether the adverse reactions are solely spike related, which may be more likely with the early doses, or if it's related to autoimmune disease which may be supported by the later doses and the reported IgG4 conversion. This doesn't take into account other variables either, so there's really a lot that has left to be unanswered.
With myocarditis many of the reports come from after the first or second dose. This study in particular is a booster study. The problem with a booster study is that it may be biased by "adverse event bias" so to speak. If you look at the initial clinical trials for the vaccines there was a suspected healthy user bias where people who were able to get the vaccines were likely to be more healthy in general, and so any complications recorded would be considered minimal.
An adverse event bias, I would argue, would suggest that people who have adverse reactions are likely to not receive subsequent doses (at least, we would hope not!), and so any booster study has to take into account that some of these people are likely to not have had adverse reactions previously and may not, at least to some degree experience it in the future. It's possible that any adverse reaction recorded at that point is likely to be autoimmune in nature (again, a speculation).
Sorry if it all sounds confusing, there's a lot of nuance that needs to be looked at with these studies and reports. When looking at any adverse event it's important to keep track of the doses, the type of vaccine, and what those adverse reactions are.
.
The Vaccinated Are A Mutant Species:
Homo Injectus.
Which Is Latin For:
UnNatural Being.
.
As per calculations by Jean-Michel Claverie (full professor of Genomics and Bioinformatics at the School of Medicine of Aix-Marseille University)
Vaccination puts 13 trillion mRNA spikes in 35 trillion body cells
https://tkp.at/2022/05/06/impfung-bringt-13-billionen-mrna-spikes-in-35-billionen-koerperzellen/
Thanks for another great study clarification - so valuable to this community. 👍🏽💕
I agree. It really seems like a preliminary study or idea. It opened the door a crack. There are many questions that can be asked from their presentation. I didn’t mean it as a Debbie Downer. You brought up other aspects that need to be followed up on. Isn’t that how we used to do scientific research. It’s exciting.
"it’s important to emphasize that any myocardial injury measured in this study was suspected based upon troponin levels alone."
Isn't that the standard method though? Now it's not good enough?
If troponin levels were NOT raised you can guarantee this would be declared as loud proof of no heart injury, but when the classic symptom of heart injury IS present, you don't think it's good enough data, too vague?
I mean, it COULD be climate change, right? And eating meat. And not voting right. So self-inflicted really, and the antivaxxers' own fault? That'll teach em!
Sure, troponin levels point to something, but most studies also follow up with imaging or even biopsies like I mentioned above. This study failed to conduct any of those, they didn't even get baseline troponin levels so we can't even argue what the original values were, they note that one person showed an increase in troponin at follow up but then didn't do anything else about it (why didn't this person have imaging done?).
The study ends up being more issues than just measuring troponin because it ends up not telling us much, and in fact when they throw in the exclusion for those with possible chronic cardiovascular disease then it makes their interpretation even worse.
After all this is said, the researchers simultaneously state that possible myocardial damage may have taken place but that it was mild, and yet nothing else seems to have been done.
The rest of your comment is an unnecessary tangent that bears no relevancy to this article. Either the researchers undertake a study and commit to making sure their study is sound or it's flawed. We can't milk this study for whatever we want from it.