Good study. It's still a small study, but many of these small studies are having the same conclusion it seems.
What's interesting is that those imaged after 180 days from dose 2 appear to have no indication of heart damage.
Asymptomatic patients who underwent PET/CT 1-180 days after their second SARS-CoV-2 vaccination showed increased myocardial Fluorine-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake on images compared to nonvaccinated patients, but patients imaged >180 days after vaccination did not.
Also interesting, though again a small sample size:
In the vaccinated group, 372/700 (53.1%) patients did not have cancer whereas in the nonvaccinated group 150/303 (49.5%) patients did not have cancer.
From Dr. Bluemke (Editor Emeritus of the journal Radiology)
The main results: asymptomatic patients vaccinated for COVID-19 before PET had about 40% greater radiotracer activity in the myocardium than unvaccinated individuals. The P value was low, less than .0001. This translates to only one time out of 10,000 that these results would occur by chance.
It's not "small." 700 people were in the experimental group. n=1,000. That's well more than enough to produce highly statistically significant results. Even the subgroup analysis of 372 cancer patients you noted is more than sufficient to produce a statistically significant result. You note that yourself with the discussion of the p-value.
By calling it "small," you minimize the impact of the work, as if it's not big enough to prove anything. That's false. The numbers are clear and the work stands on its merits. The mRNA vaccines cause heart inflammation even in health, asymptomatic patients and the effect persists even 6 months after introduction of the vaccine. You don't need 10,000 people to prove this.
Good study. It's still a small study, but many of these small studies are having the same conclusion it seems.
What's interesting is that those imaged after 180 days from dose 2 appear to have no indication of heart damage.
Also interesting, though again a small sample size:
From Dr. Bluemke (Editor Emeritus of the journal Radiology)
It's not "small." 700 people were in the experimental group. n=1,000. That's well more than enough to produce highly statistically significant results. Even the subgroup analysis of 372 cancer patients you noted is more than sufficient to produce a statistically significant result. You note that yourself with the discussion of the p-value.
By calling it "small," you minimize the impact of the work, as if it's not big enough to prove anything. That's false. The numbers are clear and the work stands on its merits. The mRNA vaccines cause heart inflammation even in health, asymptomatic patients and the effect persists even 6 months after introduction of the vaccine. You don't need 10,000 people to prove this.