New Covid-19 Vaccine, Myocarditis Claims from Suspicious Summary of American Heart Association Journal

Summary of the research Published in a medical journal on November 8th circulation We have a fair amount of distribution on social media. The summary made a fairly dramatic claim: “mRNAvacs dramatically increases inflammation of the heart,” which explains the observation of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events after vaccination. maybe”. However, there are several dramas around this summary, and there is a lack of small things called “evidence” to support such claims. In fact, on November 24, a committee of the American Heart Association said, “Expressing concern“Potential error in summarization” warning.

Did such a potential error prevent people on social media from spreading the summary and making further unsupported claims about the Covid-19 vaccine? In a nutshell, no. In a nutshell, no. Why do science and facts prevent us from making claims in 12 words? For example, the following tweet shared a summary, but falsely claimed that what was said in the summary constituted a warning for the American Heart Association (AHA).

Well, just because the research summary was published circulation, The AHA journal does not necessarily mean that the content of the abstract represents the location of the AHA. It’s like saying that the song “WAP” represents Spotify’s position.Everything contained in an abstract unless the abstract states that it represents the location of AHA No AHA warning. It would be more accurate to call this a Gandley warning. That’s because Stephen R. Gandley, MD, was the only author of the abstract.

< position="inread" progressive="" ad-id="article-0-inread" aria-hidden="true" role="presentation"/>

Who is Gandry? good, Bio on Goop Website Gandley describes it as “Founder and Director of the International Heart and Lang Institute and Center for Restorative Medicine.”He is the author of Botanical Paradox: The Hidden Dangers of “Healthy” Foods That Cause Illness and Weight Gain, Longevity Paradox: How to Die at Youth in Ripe Old Age, And the future Botanical Paradox Family Cookbook.. In 2016, Gandley founded Gandley MD, which includes a wellness blog, a YouTube channel, and a company that sells supplements. Therefore, Gandley’s warning is not exactly the same as AHA’s warning.

In addition, the 319-word abstract research abstract is not the same as a peer-reviewed study published as a research paper in a reputable scientific journal. circulation It is a very popular scientific magazine. However, the research outline of the AHA conference is not the same as the research papers of that journal. Just because a job advertisement appears in a newspaper that is trying to sell a One Direction shrine does not mean that you wrote an article about One Direction in that newspaper. Similarly, abstracts alone do not usually provide the same formal peer review that research papers do.

Still, it is clearly that the anti-baccer said, “This summary is a peer-reviewed dissertation. circulation, “According to the following tweet from Dr. Tara C. Smith: Professor of Epidemiology, Faculty of Public Health, Kent State University:

Accuracy, accuracy, is that so? Recall the lines of the 1980s movie Joan Cusack Working girl, “Sometimes I wear underwear and sing and dance around the house. I never make me Madonna.” Unfortunately, even if I dress up my research summary, it’s in research articles and AHA statements. Must not be. never.

In addition, there is a reason why this summary is now “expressing concern”. The “statement of concern” regarding the study outline is quite different from the important others who have the “statement of concern” when they accidentally hit their head in the bathroom or hit their face with the head of lettuce. A “statement of concern” is a way for a scientific committee or journal editor to inform everyone that an abstract may contain misleading information.

In this case, the “statement of concern” is “there is a potential error in the summary. Specifically, there are some typographical errors, no summary data on myocardial T cell infiltration, and a statistical analysis of significance. Not provided and the author does not make it clear that only case data was used. ”Well,“ no data ”and“ no statistical analysis ”are seen when talking about study summaries. Not a good phrase for. Imagine a salesman saying that a car has “no engine” and “no wheels”, but you buy the car anyway.

In summary, Gandley’s group “PLUS [sic] Cardiac examination (GD Biosciences, Inc, Irvine, CA) is a clinically validated measure of multiple protein biomarkers, a score that predicts the 5-year risk (probability) of a new acute coronary syndrome (ACS). And generate the result of the summary. Without additional authors in the abstract, it is difficult to determine who was part of Gandley’s group and what their scientific qualifications and experience are.

In summary, Gandley’s group collected “M: F ratio 1: 1 seen in preventive heart disease practice, 566 points aged 28-97 years” 2-10 weeks after receiving the second vaccination. I applied the PULS test to my blood. -19 mRNA vaccine. This generated a “PULS score” that was compared to the PULS score from blood samples “taken 3-5 months before pre-shooting”. The summary was then presented in the text in numbers that were a bit difficult to interpret: “These changes increased the PULS score from 11% 5-year ACS risk to 25% 5-year ACS risk. At the time of this report, these. Changes persist for at least 2.5 months after the second vac administration. “Then, the summary is,” mRNA vacs dramatically increases endothelial inflammation and myocardial T-cell infiltration, and post-vaccination thrombosis. , May explain the observation of increased cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events. “

The summary did not provide enough data to support such a conclusion. First of all, blood tests alone do not tell you the risk of heart problems. You must also see the heart you know. It is unusual for a dentist to say “OK, let’s look at your feet” without looking at your mouth. Similarly, instead of simply relying on a blood test, a doctor who assesses your heart’s risk should test your heart. This usually involves performing a physical examination to hear the sound of the heart, check the pulse, and look for physical signs of heart problems. It consists of an electrocardiogram (EKG) check and, in some cases, echocardiography and other diagnostic imaging of the heart.

Second, the abstract provided little information about the patients who were part of the study. It listed patients as “28-97 years” without showing an average or median age. It’s a fairly wide range. If you’re playing basketball and your teammate is told you’re either 28 or 97, you probably have an additional question. The summary did not show how the patient was recruited for the study, or whether the patient reported any symptoms or had other medical conditions. Other conditions can affect the biomarkers measured in the blood by the PULS test. For example, what is the effect of Covid-19 coronavirus infection on these biomarkers at any given time?

Third, scientific abstracts usually do not use the words used in this abstract. Don’t worry about the fact that the abstract uses pretty weird terms like “mRNAvacs” to make the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine sound like a vacuum cleaner. An example of an atypical expression is “dramatically increasing”. This is so subjective and relative that real scientists do not like to use it. For example, if you have 5 rolls of toilet paper and you don’t currently have anything or need to balance your head rolls, it can be a “dramatic increase”. However, if you already have 10,000 head roles that can be “dramatically” larger than toilet paper or other heads, this is not a dramatic increase. Instead, scientists tend to rely on hard numbers when reporting p-values ​​to either quantify the actual increase or relay whether the increase is statistically significant. Oh, but the latter needs to perform and report on the actual statistical analysis. This didn’t seem to apply to this summary. Therefore, it is a warning of “expression of concern”.

Speaking of warnings, Twitter has noticed concerns about summaries and has added warnings to those who are clinking links to summaries via Twitter. The warning described the link as “potentially spam or insecure”. Twitter’s warning is yet another social media post on summaries and claims such as “Twitter is currently blocking access to the American Heart Association article on heart risk associated with the COVID vaccine” in the following tweet: It led to the waves.

Again, this summary was not an “American Heart Association article.” And Twitter didn’t seem to block access to anything. The warning shown in the tweet above had the option to “ignore this warning and continue”. If you can’t even get the power to click this option, it’s a good idea to see a real doctor.

Overall, the summary of this study in its current form should not change your perception of the safety of the Covid-19 vaccine. I covered Forbes The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warns of the relatively rare risk of myocarditis or pericarditis after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna Covid-19 mRNA vaccine. This risk is even lower than the risk of being killed by cattle, which could be 1 in 300,000, according to one report. Such a risk is much lower than the risk of these heart diseases after being infected with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Of course, the risk of being killed by a cow depends on what you are doing with it.