Those who go on and on about vaccine risks and excess deaths don’t like it when confronted with actual research that suggests that maybe what they should be more concerned about is the effects of a CV-19 infection or of missed care. Since the majority of people have now been infected and vaxed, seems obvious that a fairly sophisticated analysis is needed to attribute an excess of anything to either. Also might help to get the baselines right, which excess death analyses routinely don’t do. In any event, here are two studies finding that people who have been infected may have much higher risks of heart disease and specifically heart attacks.
In the first study, researchers looked at rates of heart attack deaths before and during the epidemic. The study period was April 1, 2012 through March 31, 2022. The trend rates were adjusted for seasonality. Heart attack rates had been declining throughout the period up to the epidemic, a well-known trend largely due to better drug interventions and heart monitoring. During the epidemic deaths associated with heart attacks increased. Although the absolute numbers were relatively low, the rate of increase was greatest among young to early-middle-aged adults. This study cites several prior pieces of research indicating that gaps of care occurred for many patients during the epidemic, likely leading to exacerbation of disease. But the research also indicates that CV-19 infection can have an impact on heart health. But many of the deaths occurred in people without CV-19 identified on the death certificate. That can be because the CV-19 infection occurred long before the heart attack, and we know that many CV-19 infections have been missed. To me, however, the story continues to be the effect of missed care. While a number of the excess heart attack deaths were associated with CV-19 infections, many more weren’t. The stress induced by the epidemic responses also likely played a role. (JMV Study)
The second study comes from Britain and is a prospective study of heart disease. People with defined CV-19 disease were matched with two supposedly uninfected controls. Infected people who were not hospitalized had an increased risk of subsequent clotting issues and overall death. Infected persons hospitalized specifically for CV-19 infection treatment had an increased risk of all outcomes, including more clotting problems, strokes, heart attacks, heart failure, heart inflammation and all-cause death. These increased risks were greatest in the first 30 days but persisted over a longer period. Most of the study occurred before vax or in the early vax stages, so that is unlikely to play a role, but it would be worthwhile for the study to examine any differences in vaxed and unvaxed populations. (BMJ Article)
What both studies suggest is that CV-19 infection is associated with increased incidence of heart disease and heart disease death. But the first study also strongly indicates to me that we are in fact seeing a large impact of changes in care patterns during the epidemic, due to what I refer to as the terror campaign, and the stress, diet, exercise and other changes caused by the epidemic responses. Those impacts will be with us for an extended time.
Join the discussion 5 Comments
Occasional reader here. Overall, a balanced article. I don’t see anything “wrong” per se, but want to offer what I hope might be helpful tips. For example, there is always risk. Some avoidable (or more likely, reducible) but many unavoidable. Central to your topic would be two. Consider the following statements:
1. Catching an illness like a case of Covid-19 is, for all practical purposes, an unavoidable risk. Short of going to extreme measures, you are almost certain to be exposed at some point. Three years into the pandemic, it’s likely that almost everyone on Earth has had at least one, and more likely, many such exposures. While the disease is very minor for most, I do not deny it can be serious for some. Also, I do not disallow that it may present long-term harms (e.g. circulatory disease). But the key point: these are, for all practical purposes, hazards that were or are not realistically possible to avoid.
2. Now consider the case of the so-called “vaccine.” For the sake of argument, let us call this an elective option, even though that is not the case for some unfortunates that are compelled to take them at pains of losing a job, education, certain social privileges, etc. It’s a voluntary choice. It’s possible that it will be a net benefit, e.g. a good choice, although I think by now most people would say it’s a bad choice. Which brings us to the flip side of the coin: If it’s likely the jab is a net negative, it’s an avoidable risk and therefore should be, well, avoided.
3. A similar argument to (2) can be made for missed care: In some cases it was a “forced move,” e.g. the medical facility was closed. But in others it was a voluntary choice of the patient to forego treatment.
In the present topic, I voluntarily choose to assume the risks of (another) Covid-19 infection, come what may. In stark contrast, I choose to avoid a “vaccine” of dubious provenance; the evidence for its benefits are rather poor, and the evidence for its harms grows by the day. Absent convincing evidence to the contrary, it’s an avoidable risk.
Response to Ben the Layabout
I will add that Kevin often cites as a confounding factor having or having had COVID on top of the vaccine. But what about the other way around? The confounding factor of having the vaccine on top of having or having had COVID? The potential harms of the vaccine adding to the potential effects of
Also, to add to what you said about deferred care, I have mentioned in the comments previously that deferred care also equals deferred medical error which is the number 3 cause of death. To which Kevin replied to have no idea what I might be talking about!
Anyway, this whole deferred care thing is a big guess. Like you said, most people were able to see medical professionals who needed to. Heck I was diagnosed with cancer March of 2020. Spent the next few months seeing many different doctors and culminated in surgery in July of 2020, delayed by my choice, they would have had me in a lot sooner.
Deny deny deny. It’s an age old strategy.
I pray Kevin opens his eye to the POSSIBILITY of vaccine injuries and deaths soon. That’s all I’m asking. It must at least be considered.
be a lot more willing to consider something if it wasn’t constantly being pimped by conspiracy theorists who have nothing but anecdotes, quacks, and troll-generated lies
This is very unreasonable writing, smacks of being a pimp who is a troll who is a lying liar. All I see when I read your thoughtful thoughts is pimpery and conspiracy theories wrapped up in a smelly quackery that smells like trolls who are also pimps who are also full of anecdotes and lies. Your anecdotal anecdotes literally just sound like a duck to me. The COVID vaccines have never been anything but Very Safe and Effective, and I can tell you from reading your mind that you didn’t get the vaccines because you are jealous of the people who did get them and probably that is why you pimp the anecdotes that you do. Also you should know that COVID causes myocarditis and heart disease and sudden death and turbo cancer and anecdotally total deaths and excess deaths are not rising but if they were rising it would be because of pimps getting COVID because they didn’t get the vaccine, and absolutely not because of any kind of untested experimental gene therapy administered to billions of people. You should also know that Ivermectin doesn’t exist, it’s just a conspiracy theory made by pimp-quacks to trick people with lies.
Why am I the only reasonable person in the room here? I can’t consider your opinion until pimps stop pimping!
I was wondering when you would crawl out of your hole, feel free to crawl back in and take your lies with you.