> Study subjects were patients at the Heart Institute.
…among patients in a heart hospital.
From the study itself [1]: “ Symptoms settled quickly with standard therapy and patients were discharged within a few days. No major adverse cardiac events and no significant arrhythmias were noted during inpatient stay.”
From 32,379 vaccine doses in Ottawa area they identified 32 cases that came to the hospital center. Hence it is likely under-reported.
> Time from last vaccination to presentation with symptoms was a median of 1.5 days
Seems statistically unlikely to be spurious correlation.
> Cardiac MRI confirmed acute myocardial and pericardial changes with the presence of edema demonstrated with both tissue mapping and late gadolinium enhancement.
Not really sure what it means, but doesn't seem like NBD.
AFAIU, COVID vaccines exhibits activity all¹ over the body, unlike typical predominantly injection-site localized vaccines. Hence issues are to be expected. Vaccine may be notably or even strictly better than getting infected, but it's not risk-free nor side-effect free. Downplaying negative reactions does no good. It only confirms antivax doubts about presented information.
Patients were OK when they left, but the vaccine clearly causes some level of issues. IUUC, and if study is correct, in this case incidence of heart inflammation was at least 1 in 1k, those being severe enough that people actually went to a Heart Institute - seems notable. And it may have long-term consequences.
These were patients already at the heart institute, not representative of the wider population. I’m not discounting negative side effects, but that’s a pretty important detail.
That is far, far too many for a safe vaccine. Scarring can remain which has repercussion on the rest of your life. Some said the condition is treatable, but these issues can remain for the rest of your life.
I am vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine. The amount of lies and false info on this topic sometimes makes me wish I would just have skipped it to be honest. It is again irresponsible that some try to mandate its application.
6 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 26.8 ms ] thread> Study subjects were patients at the Heart Institute.
…among patients in a heart hospital.
From the study itself [1]: “ Symptoms settled quickly with standard therapy and patients were discharged within a few days. No major adverse cardiac events and no significant arrhythmias were noted during inpatient stay.”
[1] https://clinicalnews.org/2021/09/16/mrna-covid-19-vaccinatio...
From 32,379 vaccine doses in Ottawa area they identified 32 cases that came to the hospital center. Hence it is likely under-reported.
> Time from last vaccination to presentation with symptoms was a median of 1.5 days
Seems statistically unlikely to be spurious correlation.
> Cardiac MRI confirmed acute myocardial and pericardial changes with the presence of edema demonstrated with both tissue mapping and late gadolinium enhancement.
Not really sure what it means, but doesn't seem like NBD.
AFAIU, COVID vaccines exhibits activity all¹ over the body, unlike typical predominantly injection-site localized vaccines. Hence issues are to be expected. Vaccine may be notably or even strictly better than getting infected, but it's not risk-free nor side-effect free. Downplaying negative reactions does no good. It only confirms antivax doubts about presented information.
Patients were OK when they left, but the vaccine clearly causes some level of issues. IUUC, and if study is correct, in this case incidence of heart inflammation was at least 1 in 1k, those being severe enough that people actually went to a Heart Institute - seems notable. And it may have long-term consequences.
¹ slight exaggeration for brevity
Where does it say that? Not in the paper as far as I can see.
I am vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine. The amount of lies and false info on this topic sometimes makes me wish I would just have skipped it to be honest. It is again irresponsible that some try to mandate its application.