Connect with us

International

What the research shows about risks of myocarditis from COVID vaccines versus risks of heart damage from COVID – two pediatric cardiologists explain how to parse the data

Parsing the risk of myocarditis from viral infection versus vaccination is challenging, and researchers are intensely studying the various factors that…

Published

on

Inflammation of the heart (shown here), known as myocarditis, can be triggered by viral infection, including COVID-19, as well as from COVID-19 vaccination, in rare cases. wildpixel/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Soon after the first COVID-19 vaccines appeared in 2021, reports of rare cases of heart inflammation, or myocarditis, began to surface.

In most instances, the myocarditis has been mild and responded well to treatment, though up to four potentially mRNA vaccine-related deaths from myocarditis in adults have been reported worldwide. No known verified deaths of children have been reported based upon publicly available data. The exact number remains a topic of very heated debate because of variability in the reporting of possible myocarditis-related deaths.

Studies have largely confirmed that the overall myocarditis risk is significantly higher after an actual COVID-19 infection compared with vaccination, and that the prognosis following myocarditis due to the vaccine is better than from infection. The specific myocarditis risk varies by age and has been debated because of differing views among a small group of physicians related to risk tolerance and support for or against COVID-19 immunization for specific age groups.

As pediatric cardiologists, we specialize in heart issues relevant to kids of all ages. We believe it is important to weigh the risk of myocarditis caused by COVID-19 immunization against not only viral myocarditis from COVID-19, but also all the other complications that COVID-19 can lead to.

Comparing risks of myocarditis from severe disease versus COVID-19 vaccination or infection is difficult to do well, and debate continues over which of those outcomes poses a higher risk.

Myocarditis explained

Myocarditis is any condition that causes heart inflammation. A closely related condition called pericarditis refers to inflammation of the outside lining of the heart. For the purpose of this article, we focus primarily on myocarditis, since it has the potential for being a more severe condition. Most cases of myocarditis are caused by infections, particularly viral ones.

Myocarditis can be confirmed by a combination of an electrocardiogram, an ultrasound heart picture called an echocardiogram and some blood testing. When it is available, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, is the most accurate method to diagnose myocarditis that doesn’t involve an invasive procedure.

A mistaken assumption is that all myocarditis is severe, since it implies damage to the heart. However, mild cases in which there is very little swelling and only temporary damage to the heart are more common than severe cases that require a machine to support heart function.

Symptoms of myocarditis include chest pain and shortness of breath.

Vaccination versus infection risk

The challenge of parsing risks of myocarditis from viral infection compared with COVID-19 vaccination is due in part to the difficulty of establishing a diagnosis of myocarditis and its population rates accurately.

The United States Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS – which is an initial reporting system for vaccine side effects – is by itself inadequate to determine the rate of any vaccine-associated side effect. This is because any side effect can be reported, and verification of a reported event only takes place afterward by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That vetted data is then reported in more robust databases like the Vaccine Safety Datalink. A very small number of the myocarditis events following COVID-19 vaccination have resulted in significant long-term consequences like heart rhythm troubles. However, such cases do not reflect the majority.

Thankfully, severe myocarditis after mRNA vaccination for COVID-19 is extremely rare. A 2021 study from Nordic scholars, which looked at comparative risks of myocarditis and heart arrhythmia in patients who experienced myocarditis after COVID-19 infection versus immunization found that the risks vary significantly by age group.

This has been touted as a reason not to vaccinate healthy young men against COVID-19. The follow-up study, however, found that the comparative risks of negative outcomes were worse from myocarditis from COVID-19 infection and other viral myocarditis than from vaccination in all patients older than 12 years of age.

And it’s worth noting that, as of mid-March 2023, the U.S. still leads the world in COVID-19 hospitalizations.

There have also been rare myocarditis cases reported with the newer non-mRNA Novovax vaccine, though we researchers do not yet know population-level rates.

Myocarditis risk by age and gender

A survey of all currently available research reveals that the risk of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination is highest in young men between the ages of 18 and 39 and older teen boys in the age range of 12 to 17, with the highest risk after the second dose of vaccine. The cause appears to be related to how the immune system processes the mRNA and sometimes generates an excessive immune response.

Myocarditis risk related to COVID-19 immunization is markedly lower in children younger than 12 years of age and much lower in adult males older than 50. The risk of severe disease from COVID-19, particularly in those older than 50 years, has been far higher throughout the pandemic than the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 vaccination. The risk of vaccination myocarditis is uniformly lower in girls than in boys.

Infants younger than 6 months can get immunity only from their mother’s antibodies unless they are exposed to COVID-19 themselves, as vaccines for this age group are not available.

How to parse the risks

While the risks of myocarditis have been highest in teen boys and young men regardless of cause, the severity and outcome of myocarditis was much worse at the 90-day mark when it stemmed from COVID-19 infection or other viral diseases. This mirrors our team’s research on this same topic.

This discussion also doesn’t take into account the clot and heart attack risks from COVID-19 itself. Because COVID-19 damages blood vessels in all parts of the body, some organ damage such as kidney failure, blood clots, heart attacks and strokes can occur.

We recognize a need for more research into how people fare over the medium and long terms following a case of immunization-related myocarditis. This is why research is ongoing, and researchers like us are committed to following the data for years to come.

COVID-19 risks in children

While there have been far fewer deaths from COVID-19 in children than adults, COVID-19 is still one of the leading causes of childhood death in the U.S., based on an early 2023 study. But COVID-19 deaths are not the only relevant measure of its effect in kids. COVID-19 has also killed more children in a shorter time period than several other vaccine-preventable diseases, such as hepatitis A and meningitis before the availability of their vaccines.

The argument that some have made that fewer children than adults die from COVID-19, or that it is often mild in children, has never been an acceptable justification to not do everything possible to protect children from it. For instance, doctors don’t stop treating pediatric cancer patients purely because there are fewer of them than adult cancer patients. And we don’t retire the measles vaccines only because most kids who get measles get only a mild case.

The primary risk that COVID-19 presents now to children is long COVID, followed by the risk of severe disease. The estimated percentage of children acquiring long COVID is still being debated, but the symptoms from long COVID can be extraordinarily debilitating. These include severe fatigue, brain fog, sleep disturbance, dizziness, nerve pain and more.

Many children with long COVID-19 report lingering fatigue and frequent headaches.

Weighing the decision to vaccinate

We believe that the decision of whether to vaccinate against COVID-19 should be based upon the patient’s age, other health problems, relative risk from vaccines, how much and what type of COVID-19 is in your community, and the patient’s and family’s preference.

Two ways that have been suggested by the CDC and the Public Health Agency of Canada to decrease the risk of COVID-19 vaccine myocarditis are to opt for Pfizer and to space your doses out by at least eight weeks. This is because Pfizer has slightly lower rates of myocarditis than Moderna.

Adults who are immunocompromised or have other medical problems known to worsen COVID-19 disease severity still carry the highest risk of severe disease. They should therefore follow the CDC COVID-19 vaccination schedule with additional boosters, if advised by their physician.

While COVID-19 immunizations are not as efficient at preventing viral transmission now as they were with the earliest variant, they remain highly effective at reducing severe illness and hospitalization, even in kids, and particularly in the high-risk state of pregnancy.

Thankfully kids have fared far better from COVID-19 infection than adults. The primary risks of severe COVID-19 for children are among babies and infants, as well as children with health problems that put them at high risk, children with the most significant types of congenital heart disease or those with other medically complex conditions. Children in those groups derive the most benefit from the primary COVID-19 vaccine series; therefore, the decision to vaccinate in their case should be easier.

Informed consent that comes with vaccination should involve discussion of infection risks. The risk of immunization will never be zero because of variability in immune system responses; therefore, making the decision should always involve considering the most-up-to date information available.

I am a professional member of the Society of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance and have participated in peer reviewed research (not as lead author) now published in the Journal of Pediatrics. No funding was used in the creation of this article.

Jennifer H. Huang does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Health Officials: Man Dies From Bubonic Plague In New Mexico

Health Officials: Man Dies From Bubonic Plague In New Mexico

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Officials in…

Published

on

Health Officials: Man Dies From Bubonic Plague In New Mexico

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Officials in New Mexico confirmed that a resident died from the plague in the United States’ first fatal case in several years.

A bubonic plague smear, prepared from a lymph removed from an adenopathic lymph node, or bubo, of a plague patient, demonstrates the presence of the Yersinia pestis bacteria that causes the plague in this undated photo. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Getty Images)

The New Mexico Department of Health, in a statement, said that a man in Lincoln County “succumbed to the plague.” The man, who was not identified, was hospitalized before his death, officials said.

They further noted that it is the first human case of plague in New Mexico since 2021 and also the first death since 2020, according to the statement. No other details were provided, including how the disease spread to the man.

The agency is now doing outreach in Lincoln County, while “an environmental assessment will also be conducted in the community to look for ongoing risk,” the statement continued.

This tragic incident serves as a clear reminder of the threat posed by this ancient disease and emphasizes the need for heightened community awareness and proactive measures to prevent its spread,” the agency said.

A bacterial disease that spreads via rodents, it is generally spread to people through the bites of infected fleas. The plague, known as the black death or the bubonic plague, can spread by contact with infected animals such as rodents, pets, or wildlife.

The New Mexico Health Department statement said that pets such as dogs and cats that roam and hunt can bring infected fleas back into homes and put residents at risk.

Officials warned people in the area to “avoid sick or dead rodents and rabbits, and their nests and burrows” and to “prevent pets from roaming and hunting.”

“Talk to your veterinarian about using an appropriate flea control product on your pets as not all products are safe for cats, dogs or your children” and “have sick pets examined promptly by a veterinarian,” it added.

“See your doctor about any unexplained illness involving a sudden and severe fever, the statement continued, adding that locals should clean areas around their home that could house rodents like wood piles, junk piles, old vehicles, and brush piles.

The plague, which is spread by the bacteria Yersinia pestis, famously caused the deaths of an estimated hundreds of millions of Europeans in the 14th and 15th centuries following the Mongol invasions. In that pandemic, the bacteria spread via fleas on black rats, which historians say was not known by the people at the time.

Other outbreaks of the plague, such as the Plague of Justinian in the 6th century, are also believed to have killed about one-fifth of the population of the Byzantine Empire, according to historical records and accounts. In 2013, researchers said the Justinian plague was also caused by the Yersinia pestis bacteria.

But in the United States, it is considered a rare disease and usually occurs only in several countries worldwide. Generally, according to the Mayo Clinic, the bacteria affects only a few people in U.S. rural areas in Western states.

Recent cases have occurred mainly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Countries with frequent plague cases include Madagascar, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Peru, the clinic says. There were multiple cases of plague reported in Inner Mongolia, China, in recent years, too.

Symptoms

Symptoms of a bubonic plague infection include headache, chills, fever, and weakness. Health officials say it can usually cause a painful swelling of lymph nodes in the groin, armpit, or neck areas. The swelling usually occurs within about two to eight days.

The disease can generally be treated with antibiotics, but it is usually deadly when not treated, the Mayo Clinic website says.

“Plague is considered a potential bioweapon. The U.S. government has plans and treatments in place if the disease is used as a weapon,” the website also says.

According to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the last time that plague deaths were reported in the United States was in 2020 when two people died.

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/13/2024 - 21:40

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Riley Gaines Explains How Women’s Sports Are Rigged To Promote The Trans Agenda

Riley Gaines Explains How Women’s Sports Are Rigged To Promote The Trans Agenda

Is there a light forming when it comes to the long, dark and…

Published

on

Riley Gaines Explains How Women's Sports Are Rigged To Promote The Trans Agenda

Is there a light forming when it comes to the long, dark and bewildering tunnel of social justice cultism?  Global events have been so frenetic that many people might not remember, but only a couple years ago Big Tech companies and numerous governments were openly aligned in favor of mass censorship.  Not just to prevent the public from investigating the facts surrounding the pandemic farce, but to silence anyone questioning the validity of woke concepts like trans ideology. 

From 2020-2022 was the closest the west has come in a long time to a complete erasure of freedom of speech.  Even today there are still countries and Europe and places like Canada or Australia that are charging forward with draconian speech laws.  The phrase "radical speech" is starting to circulate within pro-censorship circles in reference to any platform where people are allowed to talk critically.  What is radical speech?  Basically, it's any discussion that runs contrary to the beliefs of the political left.

Open hatred of moderate or conservative ideals is perfectly acceptable, but don't ever shine a negative light on woke activism, or you might be a terrorist.

Riley Gaines has experienced this double standard first hand.  She was even assaulted and taken hostage at an event in 2023 at San Francisco State University when leftists protester tried to trap her in a room and demanded she "pay them to let her go."  Campus police allegedly witnessed the incident but charges were never filed and surveillance footage from the college was never released.  

It's probably the last thing a champion female swimmer ever expects, but her head-on collision with the trans movement and the institutional conspiracy to push it on the public forced her to become a counter-culture voice of reason rather than just an athlete.

For years the independent media argued that no matter how much we expose the insanity of men posing as women to compete and dominate women's sports, nothing will really change until the real female athletes speak up and fight back.  Riley Gaines and those like her represent that necessary rebellion and a desperately needed return to common sense and reason.

In a recent interview on the Joe Rogan Podcast, Gaines related some interesting information on the inner workings of the NCAA and the subversive schemes surrounding trans athletes.  Not only were women participants essentially strong-armed by colleges and officials into quietly going along with the program, there was also a concerted propaganda effort.  Competition ceremonies were rigged as vehicles for promoting trans athletes over everyone else. 

The bottom line?  The competitions didn't matter.  The real women and their achievements didn't matter.  The only thing that mattered to officials were the photo ops; dudes pretending to be chicks posing with awards for the gushing corporate media.  The agenda took precedence.

Lia Thomas, formerly known as William Thomas, was more than an activist invading female sports, he was also apparently a science project fostered and protected by the athletic establishment.  It's important to understand that the political left does not care about female athletes.  They do not care about women's sports.  They don't care about the integrity of the environments they co-opt.  Their only goal is to identify viable platforms with social impact and take control of them.  Women's sports are seen as a vehicle for public indoctrination, nothing more.

The reasons why they covet women's sports are varied, but a primary motive is the desire to assert the fallacy that men and women are "the same" psychologically as well as physically.  They want the deconstruction of biological sex and identity as nothing more than "social constructs" subject to personal preference.  If they can destroy what it means to be a man or a woman, they can destroy the very foundations of relationships, families and even procreation.  

For now it seems as though the trans agenda is hitting a wall with much of the public aware of it and less afraid to criticize it.  Social media companies might be able to silence some people, but they can't silence everyone.  However, there is still a significant threat as the movement continues to target children through the public education system and women's sports are not out of the woods yet.   

The ultimate solution is for women athletes around the world to organize and widely refuse to participate in any competitions in which biological men are allowed.  The only way to save women's sports is for women to be willing to end them, at least until institutions that put doctrine ahead of logic are made irrelevant.          

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/13/2024 - 17:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Congress’ failure so far to deliver on promise of tens of billions in new research spending threatens America’s long-term economic competitiveness

A deal that avoided a shutdown also slashed spending for the National Science Foundation, putting it billions below a congressional target intended to…

Published

on

Science is again on the chopping block on Capitol Hill. AP Photo/Sait Serkan Gurbuz

Federal spending on fundamental scientific research is pivotal to America’s long-term economic competitiveness and growth. But less than two years after agreeing the U.S. needed to invest tens of billions of dollars more in basic research than it had been, Congress is already seriously scaling back its plans.

A package of funding bills recently passed by Congress and signed by President Joe Biden on March 9, 2024, cuts the current fiscal year budget for the National Science Foundation, America’s premier basic science research agency, by over 8% relative to last year. That puts the NSF’s current allocation US$6.6 billion below targets Congress set in 2022.

And the president’s budget blueprint for the next fiscal year, released on March 11, doesn’t look much better. Even assuming his request for the NSF is fully funded, it would still, based on my calculations, leave the agency a total of $15 billion behind the plan Congress laid out to help the U.S. keep up with countries such as China that are rapidly increasing their science budgets.

I am a sociologist who studies how research universities contribute to the public good. I’m also the executive director of the Institute for Research on Innovation and Science, a national university consortium whose members share data that helps us understand, explain and work to amplify those benefits.

Our data shows how underfunding basic research, especially in high-priority areas, poses a real threat to the United States’ role as a leader in critical technology areas, forestalls innovation and makes it harder to recruit the skilled workers that high-tech companies need to succeed.

A promised investment

Less than two years ago, in August 2022, university researchers like me had reason to celebrate.

Congress had just passed the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act. The science part of the law promised one of the biggest federal investments in the National Science Foundation in its 74-year history.

The CHIPS act authorized US$81 billion for the agency, promised to double its budget by 2027 and directed it to “address societal, national, and geostrategic challenges for the benefit of all Americans” by investing in research.

But there was one very big snag. The money still has to be appropriated by Congress every year. Lawmakers haven’t been good at doing that recently. As lawmakers struggle to keep the lights on, fundamental research is quickly becoming a casualty of political dysfunction.

Research’s critical impact

That’s bad because fundamental research matters in more ways than you might expect.

For instance, the basic discoveries that made the COVID-19 vaccine possible stretch back to the early 1960s. Such research investments contribute to the health, wealth and well-being of society, support jobs and regional economies and are vital to the U.S. economy and national security.

Lagging research investment will hurt U.S. leadership in critical technologies such as artificial intelligence, advanced communications, clean energy and biotechnology. Less support means less new research work gets done, fewer new researchers are trained and important new discoveries are made elsewhere.

But disrupting federal research funding also directly affects people’s jobs, lives and the economy.

Businesses nationwide thrive by selling the goods and services – everything from pipettes and biological specimens to notebooks and plane tickets – that are necessary for research. Those vendors include high-tech startups, manufacturers, contractors and even Main Street businesses like your local hardware store. They employ your neighbors and friends and contribute to the economic health of your hometown and the nation.

Nearly a third of the $10 billion in federal research funds that 26 of the universities in our consortium used in 2022 directly supported U.S. employers, including:

  • A Detroit welding shop that sells gases many labs use in experiments funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Defense and Department of Energy.

  • A Dallas-based construction company that is building an advanced vaccine and drug development facility paid for by the Department of Health and Human Services.

  • More than a dozen Utah businesses, including surveyors, engineers and construction and trucking companies, working on a Department of Energy project to develop breakthroughs in geothermal energy.

When Congress shortchanges basic research, it also damages businesses like these and people you might not usually associate with academic science and engineering. Construction and manufacturing companies earn more than $2 billion each year from federally funded research done by our consortium’s members.

A lag or cut in federal research funding would harm U.S. competitiveness in critical advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and robotics. Hispanolistic/E+ via Getty Images

Jobs and innovation

Disrupting or decreasing research funding also slows the flow of STEM – science, technology, engineering and math – talent from universities to American businesses. Highly trained people are essential to corporate innovation and to U.S. leadership in key fields, such as AI, where companies depend on hiring to secure research expertise.

In 2022, federal research grants paid wages for about 122,500 people at universities that shared data with my institute. More than half of them were students or trainees. Our data shows that they go on to many types of jobs but are particularly important for leading tech companies such as Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Intel.

That same data lets me estimate that over 300,000 people who worked at U.S. universities in 2022 were paid by federal research funds. Threats to federal research investments put academic jobs at risk. They also hurt private sector innovation because even the most successful companies need to hire people with expert research skills. Most people learn those skills by working on university research projects, and most of those projects are federally funded.

High stakes

If Congress doesn’t move to fund fundamental science research to meet CHIPS and Science Act targets – and make up for the $11.6 billion it’s already behind schedule – the long-term consequences for American competitiveness could be serious.

Over time, companies would see fewer skilled job candidates, and academic and corporate researchers would produce fewer discoveries. Fewer high-tech startups would mean slower economic growth. America would become less competitive in the age of AI. This would turn one of the fears that led lawmakers to pass the CHIPS and Science Act into a reality.

Ultimately, it’s up to lawmakers to decide whether to fulfill their promise to invest more in the research that supports jobs across the economy and in American innovation, competitiveness and economic growth. So far, that promise is looking pretty fragile.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on Jan. 16, 2024.

Jason Owen-Smith receives research support from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and Wellcome Leap.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending