Japan Today Get your ticket to GaijinPot Expo 2024
Image: iStock/wildpixel
health

COVID-19 may increase heart attack and stroke risk for years

37 Comments
By Laura Williamson, American Heart Association News

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2024 American Heart Association News

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

37 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

The analysis, which did not include people infected after vaccines were widely available

They certainly should look at it. They will certainly find a similar effect from the vax, increasing the risk of heart attacks and stroke.

0 ( +12 / -12 )

A very curious omission.

It's easy to miss something you refuse to look for.

3 ( +12 / -9 )

They certainly should look at it. They will certainly find a similar effect from the vax, increasing the risk of heart attacks and stroke.

There is no evidence of this being the case, and clear evidence that there is no cardiac risk (as in clinically distinguishable) related to vaccination. Even from the results of this study if your claim was true it would result on a further increase observed after vaccination was available (since people were vaccinated even if previously infected) such secondary increase is obviously not observed.

A very curious omission.

What is curious about it? the vaccines have already been studied extensively and there is no cardiac risk associated with them, just mild and transitory inflammation that has no clinical relevance.

This study on the other hand is focused on the population that was more likely to be affected strongly, to facilitate finding something of importance (or to more strongly prove a lack of relationship). They found a very important increase of risk as expected, but more importantly they found that the risk continued for at least 3 years, maybe permanently.

This helps understanding why antiscientif propaganda that pretended people should just get covid to get immunity were irresponsible and could mislead people into getting unnecessary risks, proponents of antiscientific things like the Great Barrington declaration share a responsibility for the increased risk of everybody they convinced about their mistaken claims.

-4 ( +10 / -14 )

those of poor health were more likely to be hospitalized

Thus it's common sense this group would the of greater risk of future illness

0 ( +5 / -5 )

those of poor health were more likely to be hospitalized

Thus it's common sense this group would the of greater risk of future illness

People that were infected but not hospitalized had also double the risk for future cardiac problems. This negates the explanation you propose.

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

Between August and November 2021, approximately 130,000 individuals received two mRNA vaccine doses (mRNA-1273; Moderna) at the vaccination center. Acute adverse events at the site were observed in 1.1% of the recipients after the first dose and in 0.4% of the recipients after the second dose.

1.1% is not an insignificant number, especially if that number marks your child, like it has mine

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-19936-5

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

People that were infected but not hospitalized had also double the risk for future cardiac problems. This negates the explanation you propose.

Like everything with covid, little or no proof is repackaged as fact. These are just observations

But that doesn't fit your narrative

Because the new findings stem from an observational and not a randomized study, researchers can't say for certain that COVID-19 infections are causing the higher risk, said Dr. Sandeep Das, a professor of medicine in the department of internal medicine's division of cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

researchers can't say for certain that COVID-19 infections are causing the higher risk

A site (in Japan) that inoculated 130,000 people CAN say that 1.1% had ACUTE adverse effects from the vaccine, though.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

If the virus causes an increased risk, does that mean the "safe and effective" MRNA vaccines - the purpose of which are to stimulate the same immune response (thus inflammation) as the virus - also do?

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

1.1% is not an insignificant number, especially if that number marks your child, like it has mine

1% of vasovagal syncope and allergies is expected from any vaccine, or even from anything that is injected. More importantly this is what the healthcare professionals delivering the vaccines are trained to expect and treat without further negative consequences for the health of the patient. In comparison covid at one point became the first cause of death for children, and that does not even include the many other long term or permanent problems that were identified in children, from autoimmune, coagulopaties or neurological development problems. The choice that represents less risk for them is still crystal clear.

Like your own source concludes

In conclusion, acute adverse events after receiving intramuscular mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 at the site of the mass vaccination center were reported in approximately 1% of the recipients, which was higher after the first dose than the second dose. Most of the events comprised vasovagal syncope/presyncope, which is possibly based on anxiety. 

Like everything with covid, little or no proof is repackaged as fact. These are just observations

Observations that are validly characterized epidemiologically are considered scientific evidence, and a clear correlation that has no other explanation apart from causation that fits the observations is also evidence of causation. Until there is another explanation that can fit the evidence at least as well as causation this is the explanation that is simply much more likely to be correct.

If the virus causes an increased risk, does that mean the "safe and effective" MRNA vaccines - the purpose of which are to stimulate the same immune response (thus inflammation) as the virus - also do?

No, since the same elevation is not observed from vaccination then it is clear that this risk depends on the infection, that comes with many things that are not present in the vaccine, for example the uncontrolled expression of many proteins, the direct cellular damage the virus produces, the dysregulation caused by the viral proteins produced precisely for that purpose by the virus, etc. etc. For example the viral infection frequently produces cough, sore throat, loss of sense of smell, etc. but the vaccine doesn't.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

Which "science" are you referring - the "science" financially beholden to powerful pharmaceutical conglomerates or the one that wasn't?

Both, every single institution of medical science in the world coincides in recommending the vaccine and saying covid is a serious health problem, this includes institutions that have no financial relationship to pharmaceutical companies, (non-profit organizations, public health systems, universities, etc.)

To suggest that there was ever a scientific consensus on the vaccine issue is highly disrespectful to the epidemiologists who (rightly) argued against a mass, one-size-fits all vaccination as the best measure to counter the spread of the virus,

That would be fine because those epidemiologists were proved wrong completely, fortunately since public health officials listening to them would have mean much more people would have many of the unexpected health problems that came with covid, such as the one being reported here with a very significant cardiac risk elevation that continues 3 years (and counting) after the infection.

There is nothing wrong with disrespecting people that tried to misrepresent the available evidence and made up claims without a proper basis and ended up putting in danger the health of uncountable people just for personal profit and fame. Those people acted in an irresponsible, unprofessional way and they should accept the consequences of doing it.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

If the virus causes an increased risk, does that mean the "safe and effective" MRNA vaccines - the purpose of which are to stimulate the same immune response (thus inflammation) as the virus - also do?

Yes, but much worse and more common for the shot, especially for the younger crowd.

What is curious about it? the vaccines have already been studied extensively and there is no cardiac risk associated with them, just mild and transitory inflammation that has no clinical relevance.

That is absolutely false on so many levels. First, it has been covered up extensively. Second, what is transitory is the troponin marker, which is released when damage occurs. That marker is transitory, but not the damage. It's like using bleeding as a marker for stabbing; just because the bleeding is transitory does not mean that the damage caused by the stabbing is also transitory. Much of the damage is permanent.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

Yes, but much worse and more common for the shot, especially for the younger crowd.

No it is not, this claim is false and has been proved so beyond any reasonable doubt, there is no institution of medical science in the world that support this false claim.

That is absolutely false on so many levels. 

Yet you present no evidence if this supposed elevated cardiac risk, much less something even remotely similar to what it is being reported in this article.

Second, what is transitory is the troponin marker, which is released when damage occurs.

When the only evidence you can find is troponin, and no actual clinical change you are supporting the claim you said it was false. This means the changes are mild and self contained and do not end up being detectable or significant from the clinical point of view.

That marker is transitory, but not the damage

There is no reference saying any damage is permanent, that is a baseless claim you are making. If there is no detectable damage, and the only evidence is a marker, then when that marker becomes normal that means there is no evidence of any damage being present afterwards.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

Observations that are validly characterized epidemiologically are considered scientific evidence, and a clear correlation that has no other explanation apart from causation that fits the observations is also evidence of causation. Until there is another explanation that can fit the evidence at least as well as causation this is the explanation that is simply much more likely to be correct..

That's a word salad of nothingness

Glad to see you're still being paid by the word.

Lockdowns were based on what has been proven to be false data.

Vaccines have been proven to be far less effective than promised

>

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

That's a word salad of nothingness

It makes perfect sense, there is a correlation, there is a well characterized physiological process that would explain the infection causing the elevation of risk, therefore the correlation can be assumed to be causal unless you can come out with another mechanisms that produces it and fits the evidence at least as well as causation.

If you can't then causation is still the likely explanation.

Lockdowns were based on what has been proven to be false data.

No, they have not, what was proved to be false was the mistaken unscientific idea that it was better to let everybody get the infection while magically isolating the vulnerable people that would be in constant contact with the infection.

Vaccines have been proven to be far less effective than promised

On the opposite, the appearance of variants and the reduction of neutralizing antibody titers were recognized as clear possibilities even before vaccines were developed, much before they were used. Yet, vaccination has been confirmed to help even against infection from very different variants and the elicited cellular immunity enough to produce a protective effect even long after neutralizing antibody titers go down. The vaccines were demonstrated much more effective than what they were though to be against a new disease that was correctly predicted to change antigenically with high frequency.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Vaccines have been proven to be far less effective than promised

Yes, and also proven to be far less safe than promised

1 ( +10 / -9 )

Yes, and also proven to be far less safe than promised

That is still false, you know how easy is to prove it? as easy as to see how you were completely unable to refute any of the arguments that proved this was false from my previous comment.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

The key is what to do about these higher risks. As it says in the article, making lifestyle changes and taking medications (aspirin) for a time after having COVID might help.

I don't know why the comments always focuses on (anti-)vaccines...

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

I don't know why the comments always focuses on (anti-)vaccines...

Perhaps because we have had countless articles about the dangers of Covid and the "dangers" cheap (yet very safe and effective) repurposed drugs (AKA horse dewormer), and strongly promoting the new and expensive shots and meds, while completely ignoring their severe adverse effects and low effectiveness.

I don't know about the other people here, but I just want to provide a proper balance and context to the information provided.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

The key is what to do about these higher risks. As it says in the article, making lifestyle changes and taking medications (aspirin) for a time after having COVID might help.

As the article concludes the most important thing to be learned from this report is that the risk is elevated for the patients, so they should consult with their doctors about what is appropriate or not for them, as mentioned aspirin may not be indicated for specific patients, so a healthcare professional should be the one that makes that decision together with the patient.

I don't know why the comments always focuses on (anti-)vaccines...

Most news outlets no longer tolerate false information about covid or vaccines since this puts in risk the health of the people that listen to it, so the people that still try to repeat it congregate in the few outlets that still let them do it.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

I don't know about the other people here, but I just want to provide a proper balance and context to the information provided.

Your comment did not provide any balance, you made baseless claims that have been debunked completely, as surely as you could not argue in defense of anything.

And no, the claim that every single institution of medical science in the world is in some global conspiracy is not an argument, it does not work to defend antiscientific claims like the world is flat or the planet is only 6000 years old, it does not work either for the antiscientific claim that vaccines are dangerous and covid innocuous either.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

good luck to all of jabbed

Since the vaccine helps preventing complications and risks related to covid this means it also protects against this previously unknown risk, that is why the researchers had to restrict the population being studied to those that were infected before the vaccine was available.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Since the vaccine helps preventing complications and risks related to covid

It causes many more complications than it prevents, especially for the younger people.

that is why the researchers had to restrict the population being studied to those that were infected before the vaccine was available.

No, they probably chose to avoid data from after the mass vaccination because that data is not reliable. So many examples of deaths or serious adverse effects soon after vaccination being wrongly blamed on the virus.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

No, it makes sense to start from an unvaccinated population to understand the problem without any interventions. Then you can move on to comparing among vaccinated/unvaccinated, and considering the type of vaccine, number of shots, etc. No need for any conspiracy theory to explain it.

No, they probably chose to avoid data from after the mass vaccination because that data is not reliable. So many examples of deaths or serious adverse effects soon after vaccination being wrongly blamed on the virus.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

No, it makes sense to start from an unvaccinated population to understand the problem without any interventions. Then you can move on to comparing among vaccinated/unvaccinated, and considering the type of vaccine, number of shots, etc.

I don't disagree with your point. But, we're approaching 2025; today we have many studies looking at the serious adverse effects of the shots. Even comparing the effects of getting the shot on those who had a previous infection versus those who never got an infection. Or looking at the effects of the infection on people that got no vs 1 vs 2 vs 3.... shots. For some reason, we NEVER see anything about this here. We NEVER see anything that might upset big pharma.

For over 3 years, we've been told countless times that we should get the shots, all of them, and NEVER any mention of how dangerous they are.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

at present Japanese society where even falsehood as if Covid-19 was ended is spread to prioritize business than health and the lives of citizen, unfortunately, people who care at continuous Covid-19 risk are not majority. 

But, domestic Covid-19 deaths per year remains high after 2022 in the shade of such social atmosphere due Japanese health officials have done nothing practically.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

This is depressing and distressing news.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It causes many more complications than it prevents, especially for the younger people.

Still false, the evidence clearly points out that it is the opposite, young people still benefit from the vaccine that reduces the risk from covid, again, covid became the number one cause of death for children before the vaccines, trying to mislead people to think otherwise is irresponsible.

No, they probably chose to avoid data from after the mass vaccination because that data is not reliable.

That you personally refuse to accept the data does not make it unreliable, the people with the expertise and experience analyzing data contradict your personal opinion, they are a much more reliable source to see if the data can be trusted or not.

But, we're approaching 2025; today we have many studies looking at the serious adverse effects of the shots. 

And the conclusion is clear, vaccination is a huge benefit compared with risking the infection, the problem is that a personal antiscientific basis prevents people from accepting this and instead use the obvious excuse that everybody is being bought just to contradict the supposed dangers, that is impossible to believe.

For over 3 years, we've been told countless times that we should get the shots, all of them, and NEVER any mention of how dangerous they are.

Of course there is risk, it is just that it is minuscule compared with the risk of not vaccinating, the problem you have with the factual, accurate description of the risk is that you personally want to believe there are much higher risks with the vaccines, but that has already been debunked completely.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Of course there is risk, it is just that it is minuscule compared with the risk of not vaccinating

Not in young, healthy males. That's what the science has determined to date...

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Not in young, healthy males. That's what the science has determined to date...

Again, this is false. When every institution of the planet say the vaccine is much less risky than the infection for everybody (6months and old) they are simply much more trust worthy than nameless people on the internet saying the opposite. Young healthy males have much less risk from the vaccine than from the infection

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/interim-considerations-us.html

COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for everyone ages 6 months and older in the United States for the prevention of COVID-19.

https://www.aafp.org/family-physician/patient-care/current-hot-topics/recent-outbreaks/covid-19/covid-19-vaccine/children-and-adolescents.html

The risk for severe and lasting adverse health outcomes in unvaccinated children and teenagers is significant. The FDA and CDC have confirmed the vaccine’s safety and efficacy for children 6 months old and older. 

You on the other hand have presented exactly zero references where a respected institution of medicine or science says the vaccine represents a higher risk than covid for any age group, just an obviously invalid appeal to your own authority.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

You on the other hand have presented exactly zero references where a respected institution of medicine or science says the vaccine represents a higher risk than covid for any age group, just an obviously invalid appeal to your own authority.

This peer-reviewed study is from the European Journal of Medical Research

This is what they've found:

vaccination can have an adverse event, especially on nervous system. The most important and common complications are cerebrovascular disorders including cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, transient ischemic attack, intracerebral hemorrhage, ischemic stroke, and demyelinating disorders including transverse myelitis, first manifestation of MS, and neuromyelitis optica. These effects are often acute and transient, but they can be severe and even fatal in a few cases

My son developed Parkinson's symptoms immediately after receiving his 2nd shot of the Pfizer vaccine. The reseach has validated the fact that nerve damage risk is a real threat. Your campaign of misinformation about the safety of vaccines could be harmful to those who might read it and assume that vaccines are safe...which they are not for some. How many remains to be fully known...but information is dripping out...slowly. Despite your efforts to dispel those risks, they do, in fact, exist...and for some they are ACUTE and even FATAL. As the research has determined.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The article quoted above:

https://eurjmedres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40001-023-00992-0

2 ( +3 / -1 )

People infected with the COVID-19 virus in 2020 may have double the risk for future heart attacks, strokes or premature death from any cause up to three years later – even if they never showed signs of severe illness, according to new research.

So was this group of people vaccinated with the mRNA shots or not? The article does not seem to say. It would be really interesting to compare cohorts with different vaccination status.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The analysis, which did not include people infected after vaccines were widely available,

Oh, me bad. I overlooked that phrase. So they ONLY looked at an unvaccinated cohort? Worthless study, until they make a corresponding one for people infected after getting the mRNA shots. THEN we would have interesting data.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

In addition, they should of course also look at the vaccinated cohort regardless of infection status. How would that cohort look like at the unvaccinated + Covid infected cohort in this study?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites