Antidotal story? Thank god they found an antidote.
Eat paste. Sip silver. Buy gold. Italian Venus fly trap. You are dying. A German said so.
Two genomics experts on record: mRNA covid 💉 contaminated ☠️
- Thread starter Boston.Knight
- Start date
Eat paste. Sip silver. Buy gold. Italian Venus fly trap. You are dying. A German said so.
William Makis. Another supplement hocker. You have to believe him and buy his supplements. He says what you want to hear.
The cancer increases are due to global warming, and extra UV's from sunlight. MRNA is getting a bad rap here.
Amen brother 👊
Nothing would make me happier than that none of this shit is true. But I'm seeing it first hand. Will pray for the victims, specially the children like little Jerry Curl 🙏
Read between the lines what “doctor” Offitt is trying to tell you. This guy sits on the committee that approved mrna for children 💰🤦♀️
Do COVID-19 vaccines cause “turbo cancer”?
Over the last several months, antivaxxers have been claiming that COVID-19 vaccines cause “turbo cancer”, cancers (or cancer recurrences) of a particularly aggressive and fast-growing variety diagnosed in younger and younger patients. “Turbo cancer” is not a thing, and the evidence cited is as weak as any antivax “evidence”, including anecdotes and misinterpretation of epidemiology.Author: David Gorski
One of the oldest antivax tropes, one I recall encountering beginning soon after I started paying attention to the antivaccine movement, is that vaccines somehow cause cancer. As I wrote ten years ago, the original version of this claim derived from the observation that an early batche of the polio vaccine from the 1950s, particularly Albert Sabin’s oral vaccine, were contaminated with SV40, which led to a “cancer epidemic” over the coming decades. (SV40 is a monkey virus known as SV40, which stands for “Simian Vacuolating Virus 40” and was found to have contaminated some of the cells that the virus was grown in, specifically kidney cells derived from Asian rhesus monkeys.) The gory details aren’t important for purposes of what I’m about to discuss—and I’ve already written in depth about what happened and why this claim, although plausible because SV40 was one of the first oncogenic viruses ever discovered. (Oncogenes are genes that cause cancer in experimental animals and, in some cases, humans.)
Unsurprisingly, it didn’t take long for antivaxxers to try to link COVID-19 vaccines to cancer as well, with attempts beginning even before the FDA granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer vaccine two years ago. First, they falsely claimed that the mRNA vaccines “permanently alter your DNA” even though basic molecular biology should have told them that mRNA in the vaccine can’t integrate into your genome, and that the mRNA vaccines were “gene therapy, not vaccines” complete with a conspiracy theory about the CDC having supposedly changed the definition of a vaccine to include them. Next came misrepresenting old studies to claim that mRNA causes cancer. More recently, long-time antivax lawyer Thomas Renz got access to the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), a database tracking the health of military personnel, and used it to make claims that are, at best erroneous and at worst intentionally misleading, specifically that COVID-19 vaccines have resulted in an epidemic of cancer in military personnel, including a nearly 900% increase in esophageal cancer and a nearly 500% increase in breast and thyroid cancers since before the military imposed its vaccine mandate. As I explained at the time, the claims were incredible on their face just from a scientific plausibility standpoint given that we know from the nuclear bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki that the cancers due to the most powerful carcinogen of all, large doses of ionizing radiation, take at least two years to begin showing up (leukemias) while most solid cancers don’t show up for around 10 years. Given that the vaccines were only introduced to the general population two years ago, even if the vaccines were as powerful a carcinogen as an ionizing radiation dose from being exposed when a nuclear bomb goes off, it would be only now that we might be beginning to see a glimmer of a cancer signal for leukemias, and even then most people didn’t receive the vaccine until months or even a year later, making too soon.
A study by a research team in Switzerland found possible signs of mild and transient damage to cardiac cells following vaccination, but didn’t find evidence of abnormal heart function or myocarditis. Getting COVID-19 is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular complications than vaccination, and the outcomes are worse. COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective at reducing the risks of severe forms of the disease, including serious cardiovascular issues.
A research team led by cardiologist Christian Mueller published a study in July 2023 investigating the effects of the Moderna mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccination on the heart[1]. Soon after the study’s publication, posts on social media circulated claiming that the study had revealed that mRNA vaccines were damaging people’s hearts.
It’s not the first time this research team’s findings have been used as a basis for misinformation. Similar posts occurred after Mueller presented the team’s main findings in 2022 at a scientific conference. Health Feedback explained why those posts were erroneous in a previous review.
Of the now-published study, the Gateway Pundit said that “1 in 35 people showed signs of heart damage after taking the Moderna COVID19 vaccine” and called it a “kill shot”. The Pundit added that “They forced Americans to take this vaccine to work and attend public events”, implying that vaccine mandates combined with the use of mRNA vaccines had put people at risk.
YouTuber and retired nurse instructor John Campbell also claimed that the study had identified an “off the scale” rate of vaccine-associated heart injury, repeating the “1 in 35” figure at length and describing this finding as “astounding”. He also commented that “we just don’t take this kind of risk, it’s just complete madness”.
Overall, such language gave the impression that the study showed that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines would lead to serious heart problems and placed people at an unnecessary risk.
Both the Gateway Pundit and Campbell have previously spread COVID-19 and vaccine disinformation, as we and others established on multiple occasions.
The researchers then measured the amount of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) in the volunteers’ blood three days after vaccination. Hs-cTnT is a protein present within the cells of the heart. When heart cells develop physical damage, even mild damage, some cells may rupture and release hs-cTnT into the blood. An elevated amount of hs-cTnT in the blood may thus indicate a possible heart injury.
From the total number of participants with elevated hs-cTnT, the researchers excluded those where an explanation other than vaccination was likely. For example, they excluded cases where a participant had a stably elevated hs-cTnT, indicating a possible chronic heart condition, or those whose preexisting troponin level was just slightly above the normal range.
This left 2.8% participants without other clear explanation for their elevated hs-cTnT than the fact that they had a booster shot. The researchers concluded from that that these people had a mRNA vaccine-associated heart injury. This is where the “1 in 35” figure repeated by the Gateway Pundit and Campbell comes from—2.8% is equivalent to 1 in 35.
First, the researchers didn’t measure the baseline level of hs-cTnT before vaccination. Even though they took care to exclude participants whose elevated troponin could be explained by something other than the vaccine, we still don’t know whether all the remaining participants had pre-vaccination troponin levels within the normal range. Some of them may have a higher than normal level of hs-cTnT for whichever reason and would be erroneously counted among the 2.8%.
Second, the elevation of troponin levels was only moderate and transient. Some of those who propagated the claim, like Campbell or the Gateway Pundit, did acknowledge this, but glossed over it and didn’t include it when assessing the importance of that finding. This is problematic because such a moderate increase might not be of much clinical significance, according to some experts.
Cardiologist Anish Koka explained on Twitter that the level of troponin was actually close to what is considered a normal level.
James de Lemos, a cardiology professor at the University of Texas, told Lead Stories that “these small troponin elevations are not likely events of clinical significance”.
Lead Stories also talked to William Schaffner, a professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University, who emphasized that the troponin elevation was “mild, temporary and totally without symptoms”.
In a similar vein, James Lawler, a professor in the division of infectious diseases of the University of Nebraska, told Lead Stories that “All of these were mild elevations […] and most seemed to revert to normal quickly”.
In fact, hs-cTnT can rise to a similar level even after normal physical activity, like intensive exercise, as scientist Susan Oliver pointed out in her review of Campbell’s video. A meta-analysis of studies on troponin levels during physical activity found that endurance exercise increased the level of hs-cTnT by an average of 26 ng/L[2]. After an intense swimming exercise, hs-cTnT peaked between 11.9 and 22.7 ng/L in teenagers and adults[3]. Similarly, the median level of hs-cTnT rose to 21 ng/L in adults and children hours after having played football (soccer)[4].
By comparison, the hs-cTnT level was only 5 ng/L among the participants in the study, and reached 13.5 ng/mL among the 2.8% who may have had a mRNA vaccine-associated heart injury.
Therefore, the level of troponin after vaccination is no higher, and sometimes even lower, than what could occur after an intense physical activity. Furthermore, the levels of hs-cTnT fell rapidly. Half of the participants with elevated levels at day three were already back to normal levels at day four.
As explained, elevated troponin can indicate damage to the heart cells. So it is important to directly examine the heart, using imaging or electrocardiogram (ECG) to check whether the heart is working properly. The study did just that and found that none of the participants had alterations in their ECG, and no definitive cases of myocarditis were found. Upon the follow-up at thirty days post-vaccination, none of them showed any major cardiac adverse events.
Therefore, there were no detectable or lasting cardiac consequences from COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Proponents of the claim like Campbell and the Gateway Pundit promoted a dire account of the study’s results on elevated hs-cTnT that ignored the other results indicating no lasting changes to heart function. By doing so, they conveyed a distorted and exaggerated vision of the study’s message.
In a further misrepresentation of the study’s results, the Gateway Pundit also inaccurately claimed that the level of troponin was still above normal in half the participants one month later. In fact, the study didn’t perform any hs-cTnT measurement at one month post-vaccination, and as explained above, half the participants had already shown normal troponin levels by day four post-vaccination.
Similarly, Campbell claimed that people who had done strenuous exercise were excluded from the study beforehand. This is also false. While none of the participants reported such exercise, this wasn’t an exclusion criterion in the study.
The study acknowledged that “COVID-19 associates with a substantially higher risk for myocarditis than mRNA vaccination, and myocarditis related to COVID-19 infection has shown a higher mortality than myocarditis related to mRNA-vaccination”[1,5,6]. Indeed, contrary to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, COVID-19 can cause severe cardiovascular problems and is more likely to cause such problems[7,8].
Therefore, while the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines may cause mild and transient injury in heart cells, it reduces the risk of serious and possibly fatal cardiovascular complications from COVID-19. This is an important piece of information, necessary to fully assess the risk-benefit ratio of vaccination, that the claim overlooked. On balance, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh its risks.
However, the levels of elevated troponin observed in the study are moderate, similar to what can be observed after an intense exercise and may not be of clinical significance. The researchers also used direct methods of examining heart function, such as medical imaging and electrocardiograms, and didn’t detect any heart issues among vaccine recipients.
Therefore, those who framed the study as showing that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were causing unexpected and dangerous damage to people’s hearts are exaggerating the results. As Mueller told Lead Stories: “Unfortunately, even now in Summer 2023 it seems difficult to have a balanced discussion on this side effect [myocardial injury]. Some people as [Campbell] massively exaggerate, others completely ignore it”.
REVIEW
A research team led by cardiologist Christian Mueller published a study in July 2023 investigating the effects of the Moderna mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccination on the heart[1]. Soon after the study’s publication, posts on social media circulated claiming that the study had revealed that mRNA vaccines were damaging people’s hearts.
It’s not the first time this research team’s findings have been used as a basis for misinformation. Similar posts occurred after Mueller presented the team’s main findings in 2022 at a scientific conference. Health Feedback explained why those posts were erroneous in a previous review.
Of the now-published study, the Gateway Pundit said that “1 in 35 people showed signs of heart damage after taking the Moderna COVID19 vaccine” and called it a “kill shot”. The Pundit added that “They forced Americans to take this vaccine to work and attend public events”, implying that vaccine mandates combined with the use of mRNA vaccines had put people at risk.
YouTuber and retired nurse instructor John Campbell also claimed that the study had identified an “off the scale” rate of vaccine-associated heart injury, repeating the “1 in 35” figure at length and describing this finding as “astounding”. He also commented that “we just don’t take this kind of risk, it’s just complete madness”.
Overall, such language gave the impression that the study showed that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines would lead to serious heart problems and placed people at an unnecessary risk.
Both the Gateway Pundit and Campbell have previously spread COVID-19 and vaccine disinformation, as we and others established on multiple occasions.
What the study did
To understand why these claims are misleading, we must first understand what the study did. The research team recruited volunteers who were planning to receive a third dose of Moderna mRNA vaccine (booster dose). The researchers excluded from the study people who had a cardiac event or surgery the month before. This is because these people are already likely to show signs of heart damage for reasons unrelated to the vaccine.The researchers then measured the amount of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) in the volunteers’ blood three days after vaccination. Hs-cTnT is a protein present within the cells of the heart. When heart cells develop physical damage, even mild damage, some cells may rupture and release hs-cTnT into the blood. An elevated amount of hs-cTnT in the blood may thus indicate a possible heart injury.
From the total number of participants with elevated hs-cTnT, the researchers excluded those where an explanation other than vaccination was likely. For example, they excluded cases where a participant had a stably elevated hs-cTnT, indicating a possible chronic heart condition, or those whose preexisting troponin level was just slightly above the normal range.
This left 2.8% participants without other clear explanation for their elevated hs-cTnT than the fact that they had a booster shot. The researchers concluded from that that these people had a mRNA vaccine-associated heart injury. This is where the “1 in 35” figure repeated by the Gateway Pundit and Campbell comes from—2.8% is equivalent to 1 in 35.
Levels of hs-TnTc are only moderately and transiently elevated, the clinical relevance is debatable
The “1 in 35” figure is thus accurate. The problem is that Campbell and the Gateway Pundit’s coverage overlooked the study’s limitations and exaggerated the significance of this figure.First, the researchers didn’t measure the baseline level of hs-cTnT before vaccination. Even though they took care to exclude participants whose elevated troponin could be explained by something other than the vaccine, we still don’t know whether all the remaining participants had pre-vaccination troponin levels within the normal range. Some of them may have a higher than normal level of hs-cTnT for whichever reason and would be erroneously counted among the 2.8%.
Second, the elevation of troponin levels was only moderate and transient. Some of those who propagated the claim, like Campbell or the Gateway Pundit, did acknowledge this, but glossed over it and didn’t include it when assessing the importance of that finding. This is problematic because such a moderate increase might not be of much clinical significance, according to some experts.
Cardiologist Anish Koka explained on Twitter that the level of troponin was actually close to what is considered a normal level.
James de Lemos, a cardiology professor at the University of Texas, told Lead Stories that “these small troponin elevations are not likely events of clinical significance”.
Lead Stories also talked to William Schaffner, a professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University, who emphasized that the troponin elevation was “mild, temporary and totally without symptoms”.
In a similar vein, James Lawler, a professor in the division of infectious diseases of the University of Nebraska, told Lead Stories that “All of these were mild elevations […] and most seemed to revert to normal quickly”.
In fact, hs-cTnT can rise to a similar level even after normal physical activity, like intensive exercise, as scientist Susan Oliver pointed out in her review of Campbell’s video. A meta-analysis of studies on troponin levels during physical activity found that endurance exercise increased the level of hs-cTnT by an average of 26 ng/L[2]. After an intense swimming exercise, hs-cTnT peaked between 11.9 and 22.7 ng/L in teenagers and adults[3]. Similarly, the median level of hs-cTnT rose to 21 ng/L in adults and children hours after having played football (soccer)[4].
By comparison, the hs-cTnT level was only 5 ng/L among the participants in the study, and reached 13.5 ng/mL among the 2.8% who may have had a mRNA vaccine-associated heart injury.
Therefore, the level of troponin after vaccination is no higher, and sometimes even lower, than what could occur after an intense physical activity. Furthermore, the levels of hs-cTnT fell rapidly. Half of the participants with elevated levels at day three were already back to normal levels at day four.
As explained, elevated troponin can indicate damage to the heart cells. So it is important to directly examine the heart, using imaging or electrocardiogram (ECG) to check whether the heart is working properly. The study did just that and found that none of the participants had alterations in their ECG, and no definitive cases of myocarditis were found. Upon the follow-up at thirty days post-vaccination, none of them showed any major cardiac adverse events.
Therefore, there were no detectable or lasting cardiac consequences from COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Proponents of the claim like Campbell and the Gateway Pundit promoted a dire account of the study’s results on elevated hs-cTnT that ignored the other results indicating no lasting changes to heart function. By doing so, they conveyed a distorted and exaggerated vision of the study’s message.
In a further misrepresentation of the study’s results, the Gateway Pundit also inaccurately claimed that the level of troponin was still above normal in half the participants one month later. In fact, the study didn’t perform any hs-cTnT measurement at one month post-vaccination, and as explained above, half the participants had already shown normal troponin levels by day four post-vaccination.
Similarly, Campbell claimed that people who had done strenuous exercise were excluded from the study beforehand. This is also false. While none of the participants reported such exercise, this wasn’t an exclusion criterion in the study.
COVID-19 is more likely cause serious cardiovascular problems compared to COVID-19 vaccination
Not only did the claim exaggerate the significance of the elevated hs-cTnT reported in the study, but it also failed to put these results in perspective with the risks of COVID-19 itself.The study acknowledged that “COVID-19 associates with a substantially higher risk for myocarditis than mRNA vaccination, and myocarditis related to COVID-19 infection has shown a higher mortality than myocarditis related to mRNA-vaccination”[1,5,6]. Indeed, contrary to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, COVID-19 can cause severe cardiovascular problems and is more likely to cause such problems[7,8].
Therefore, while the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines may cause mild and transient injury in heart cells, it reduces the risk of serious and possibly fatal cardiovascular complications from COVID-19. This is an important piece of information, necessary to fully assess the risk-benefit ratio of vaccination, that the claim overlooked. On balance, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh its risks.
Conclusion
The study by Mueller and his team offers new information on the effect of mRNA vaccination on the heart. They found that booster shots caused a mild increase in hs-cTnT that could indicate transient and moderate damage to the cardiac cells.However, the levels of elevated troponin observed in the study are moderate, similar to what can be observed after an intense exercise and may not be of clinical significance. The researchers also used direct methods of examining heart function, such as medical imaging and electrocardiograms, and didn’t detect any heart issues among vaccine recipients.
Therefore, those who framed the study as showing that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were causing unexpected and dangerous damage to people’s hearts are exaggerating the results. As Mueller told Lead Stories: “Unfortunately, even now in Summer 2023 it seems difficult to have a balanced discussion on this side effect [myocardial injury]. Some people as [Campbell] massively exaggerate, others completely ignore it”.
COVID-19 vaccines didn’t cause injuries and disabilities that cost the economy billions of dollars; vaccines benefited the economy
COVID-19 are effective at preventing deaths and severe forms of the disease. The mass vaccination campaigns occurring worldwide have sped up the reopening of the economy. The workforce suffered from absence and working hours loss in 2022 due to the aftermath of the pandemic including long COVID.
Buy gold. Sip silver. Eat paste. Lord alfred, lord of cats has spoken.
Oh fukcing please. You wake up at 5 in the morning scouring the web for this shit. I'm sure you've absolutely worn out Momma Thumb and her four daughters wanking to this shit you sick POS.
@Boston.Knight still thinks its "antidotally" instead of "anecdotally" 🤣 you stupid sack shit
You legitimately have the vocabulary of a middle schooler.
Last edited:
Do COVID-19 vaccines cause “turbo cancer”?
Over the last several months, antivaxxers have been claiming that COVID-19 vaccines cause “turbo cancer”, cancers (or cancer recurrences) of a particularly aggressive and fast-growing variety diagnosed in younger and younger patients. “Turbo cancer” is not a thing, and the evidence cited is as weak as any antivax “evidence”, including anecdotes and misinterpretation of epidemiology.One of the oldest antivax tropes, one I recall encountering beginning soon after I started paying attention to the antivaccine movement, is that vaccines somehow cause cancer. As I wrote ten years ago, the original version of this claim derived from the observation that an early batche of the polio vaccine from the 1950s, particularly Albert Sabin’s oral vaccine, were contaminated with SV40, which led to a “cancer epidemic” over the coming decades. (SV40 is a monkey virus known as SV40, which stands for “Simian Vacuolating Virus 40” and was found to have contaminated some of the cells that the virus was grown in, specifically kidney cells derived from Asian rhesus monkeys.) The gory details aren’t important for purposes of what I’m about to discuss—and I’ve already written in depth about what happened and why this claim, although plausible because SV40 was one of the first oncogenic viruses ever discovered, turned out not to have any good evidence to support it. (Oncogenes are genes that cause cancer in experimental animals and, in some cases, humans.)
Unsurprisingly, it didn’t take long for antivaxxers to try to link COVID-19 vaccines to cancer as well, with attempts beginning even before the FDA granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer vaccine two years ago. First, they falsely claimed that the mRNA vaccines “permanently alter your DNA” even though basic molecular biology should have told them that mRNA in the vaccine can’t integrate into your genome, and that the mRNA vaccines were “gene therapy, not vaccines” complete with a conspiracy theory about the CDC having supposedly changed the definition of a vaccine to include them. Next came misrepresenting old studies to claim that mRNA causes cancer. More recently, long-time antivax lawyer Thomas Renz got access to the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), a database tracking the health of military personnel, and used it to make claims that are, at best erroneous and at worst intentionally misleading, specifically that COVID-19 vaccines have resulted in an epidemic of cancer in military personnel, including a nearly 900% increase in esophageal cancer and a nearly 500% increase in breast and thyroid cancers since before the military imposed its vaccine mandate. As I explained at the time, the claims were incredible on their face just from a scientific plausibility standpoint given that we know from the nuclear bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki that the cancers due to the most powerful carcinogen of all, large doses of ionizing radiation, take at least two years to begin showing up (leukemias) while most solid cancers don’t show up for around 10 years. Given that the vaccines were only introduced to the general population two years ago, even if the vaccines were as powerful a carcinogen as an ionizing radiation dose from being exposed when a nuclear bomb goes off, it would be only now that we might be beginning to see a glimmer of a cancer signal for leukemias, and even then most people didn’t receive the vaccine until months or even a year later, making too soon.
Another antidotal story. William makis wants you to buy his spike support supplement to support your spike protein.
www.twc.health
It’s part of the signature series and the only product on earth to contain both nattokinase and dandilions.
Buy gold sip silver eat paste. Italian Venus flytraps gonna get ya. Trust a random German and supplement hockers. Lord Alfred of cats from the X has spoken.
Signature Series Spike Support Formula
Our proprietary formula provides immune and healing support for people suffering from prolonged effects of upper respiratory infections or other health concerns. We recommend this formula to help your body repair itself and recover to optimal health. Our Spike Support Formula utilizes selenium...
www.twc.health
It’s part of the signature series and the only product on earth to contain both nattokinase and dandilions.
Buy gold sip silver eat paste. Italian Venus flytraps gonna get ya. Trust a random German and supplement hockers. Lord Alfred of cats from the X has spoken.
Only @UCFBS and @Boston.Knight are trying to make their lives relevant through Covid and Covid vaccines at this point
I unfortunately know both and they are literally human trash. Amongst the most pathetic and pitiful humans in America
I unfortunately know both and they are literally human trash. Amongst the most pathetic and pitiful humans in America
A chud from a liberal arts Christian school and a reasercher. You have to trust them.
“Independent researcher”
A chud from a liberal arts Christian school and a reasercher. You have to trust them.
Sounds totally qualified. I wonder if she fits this in between her shifts at 7-11.
Antidotal stories from Ricki Lake requires no skepticism. Drew Pinsky is my favorite Loveline host. 15 billion vaccines is going to cause an apocalypse. It’s like people are dying every day now. Unbelievable that it’s anything but a vaccine. Buy paste sip gold eat silver. German scientists, independent reasaerchars, people who got a Bible study degree, and supplement hockers are really the only people who can be trusted unconditionally with no skepticism. Italian Venus flytrap. Skeptic Lord Alfred from the X has spoken. Don’t over-tighten your lugnuts.
This information is from March. The world according to Parade Float Dr UCFBS and loser dork Crazy Bill
😂😂😂😂😂
More than 5.55 billion people worldwide have received a dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, equal to about 72.3 percent of the world population. This map shows the stark gap between vaccination programs in different countries.Mar 13, 2023
😂😂😂😂😂
More than 5.55 billion people worldwide have received a dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, equal to about 72.3 percent of the world population. This map shows the stark gap between vaccination programs in different countries.Mar 13, 2023
I heard a scientist on the radio lamenting the 'politization' of vaccines and climate change. He said the scientific evidence on these two issues is overwhelming. He said the debate is akin to having a societal death wish.
It reminds me of an interview I heard during the early days of the pandemic with a South Dakota nurse who said she had a patient who was arguing his diagnosis to the very end because he COULDN'T POSSIBLY be dying of COVID because it was all a hoax.
Mrnadeath is always a good follow and a reliable source of unbiased information. Buy gold. Sip silver. Eat paste.
Do COVID-19 vaccines cause “turbo cancer”?
Over the last several months, antivaxxers have been claiming that COVID-19 vaccines cause “turbo cancer”, cancers (or cancer recurrences) of a particularly aggressive and fast-growing variety diagnosed in younger and younger patients. “Turbo cancer” is not a thing, and the evidence cited is as weak as any antivax “evidence”, including anecdotes and misinterpretation of epidemiologyOne of the oldest antivax tropes, one I recall encountering beginning soon after I started paying attention to the antivaccine movement, is that vaccines somehow cause cancer. As I wrote ten years ago, the original version of this claim derived from the observation that an early batche of the polio vaccine from the 1950s, particularly Albert Sabin’s oral vaccine, were contaminated with SV40, which led to a “cancer epidemic” over the coming decades. (SV40 is a monkey virus known as SV40, which stands for “Simian Vacuolating Virus 40” and was found to have contaminated some of the cells that the virus was grown in, specifically kidney cells derived from Asian rhesus monkeys.) The gory details aren’t important for purposes of what I’m about to discuss—and I’ve already written in depth about what happened and why this claim, although plausible because SV40 was one of the first oncogenic viruses ever discovered, turned out not to have any good evidence to support it. (Oncogenes are genes that cause cancer in experimental animals and, in some cases, humans.)
Unsurprisingly, it didn’t take long for antivaxxers to try to link COVID-19 vaccines to cancer as well, with attempts beginning even before the FDA granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer vaccine two years ago. First, they falsely claimed that the mRNA vaccines “permanently alter your DNA” even though basic molecular biology should have told them that mRNA in the vaccine can’t integrate into your genome, and that the mRNA vaccines were “gene therapy, not vaccines” complete with a conspiracy theory about the CDC having supposedly changed the definition of a vaccine to include them. Next came misrepresenting old studies to claim that mRNA causes cancer. More recently, long-time antivax lawyer Thomas Renz got access to the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), a database tracking the health of military personnel, and used it to make claims that are, at best erroneous and at worst intentionally misleading, specifically that COVID-19 vaccines have resulted in an epidemic of cancer in military personnel, including a nearly 900% increase in esophageal cancer and a nearly 500% increase in breast and thyroid cancers since before the military imposed its vaccine mandate. As I explained at the time, the claims were incredible on their face just from a scientific plausibility standpoint given that we know from the nuclear bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki that the cancers due to the most powerful carcinogen of all, large doses of ionizing radiation, take at least two years to begin showing up (leukemias) while most solid cancers don’t show up for around 10 years. Given that the vaccines were only introduced to the general population two years ago, even if the vaccines were as powerful a carcinogen as an ionizing radiation dose from being exposed when a nuclear bomb goes off, it would be only now that we might be beginning to see a glimmer of a cancer signal for leukemias, and even then most people didn’t receive the vaccine until months or even a year later, making too soon.
A study by a research team in Switzerland found possible signs of mild and transient damage to cardiac cells following vaccination, but didn’t find evidence of abnormal heart function or myocarditis. Getting COVID-19 is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular complications than vaccination, and the outcomes are worse. COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective at reducing the risks of severe forms of the disease, including serious cardiovascular issues.
A research team led by cardiologist Christian Mueller published a study in July 2023 investigating the effects of the Moderna mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccination on the heart[1]. Soon after the study’s publication, posts on social media circulated claiming that the study had revealed that mRNA vaccines were damaging people’s hearts.
It’s not the first time this research team’s findings have been used as a basis for misinformation. Similar posts occurred after Mueller presented the team’s main findings in 2022 at a scientific conference. Health Feedback explained why those posts were erroneous in a previous review.
Of the now-published study, the Gateway Pundit said that “1 in 35 people showed signs of heart damage after taking the Moderna COVID19 vaccine” and called it a “kill shot”. The Pundit added that “They forced Americans to take this vaccine to work and attend public events”, implying that vaccine mandates combined with the use of mRNA vaccines had put people at risk.
YouTuber and retired nurse instructor John Campbell also claimed that the study had identified an “off the scale” rate of vaccine-associated heart injury, repeating the “1 in 35” figure at length and describing this finding as “astounding”. He also commented that “we just don’t take this kind of risk, it’s just complete madness”.
Overall, such language gave the impression that the study showed that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines would lead to serious heart problems and placed people at an unnecessary risk.
Both the Gateway Pundit and Campbell have previously spread COVID-19 and vaccine disinformation, as we and others established on multiple occasions.
The researchers then measured the amount of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) in the volunteers’ blood three days after vaccination. Hs-cTnT is a protein present within the cells of the heart. When heart cells develop physical damage, even mild damage, some cells may rupture and release hs-cTnT into the blood. An elevated amount of hs-cTnT in the blood may thus indicate a possible heart injury.
From the total number of participants with elevated hs-cTnT, the researchers excluded those where an explanation other than vaccination was likely. For example, they excluded cases where a participant had a stably elevated hs-cTnT, indicating a possible chronic heart condition, or those whose preexisting troponin level was just slightly above the normal range.
This left 2.8% participants without other clear explanation for their elevated hs-cTnT than the fact that they had a booster shot. The researchers concluded from that that these people had a mRNA vaccine-associated heart injury. This is where the “1 in 35” figure repeated by the Gateway Pundit and Campbell comes from—2.8% is equivalent to 1 in 35.
First, the researchers didn’t measure the baseline level of hs-cTnT before vaccination. Even though they took care to exclude participants whose elevated troponin could be explained by something other than the vaccine, we still don’t know whether all the remaining participants had pre-vaccination troponin levels within the normal range. Some of them may have a higher than normal level of hs-cTnT for whichever reason and would be erroneously counted among the 2.8%.
Second, the elevation of troponin levels was only moderate and transient. Some of those who propagated the claim, like Campbell or the Gateway Pundit, did acknowledge this, but glossed over it and didn’t include it when assessing the importance of that finding. This is problematic because such a moderate increase might not be of much clinical significance, according to some experts.
Cardiologist Anish Koka explained on Twitter that the level of troponin was actually close to what is considered a normal level.
James de Lemos, a cardiology professor at the University of Texas, told Lead Stories that “these small troponin elevations are not likely events of clinical significance”.
Lead Stories also talked to William Schaffner, a professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University, who emphasized that the troponin elevation was “mild, temporary and totally without symptoms”.
In a similar vein, James Lawler, a professor in the division of infectious diseases of the University of Nebraska, told Lead Stories that “All of these were mild elevations […] and most seemed to revert to normal quickly”.
In fact, hs-cTnT can rise to a similar level even after normal physical activity, like intensive exercise, as scientist Susan Oliver pointed out in her review of Campbell’s video. A meta-analysis of studies on troponin levels during physical activity found that endurance exercise increased the level of hs-cTnT by an average of 26 ng/L[2]. After an intense swimming exercise, hs-cTnT peaked between 11.9 and 22.7 ng/L in teenagers and adults[3]. Similarly, the median level of hs-cTnT rose to 21 ng/L in adults and children hours after having played football (soccer)[4].
By comparison, the hs-cTnT level was only 5 ng/L among the participants in the study, and reached 13.5 ng/mL among the 2.8% who may have had a mRNA vaccine-associated heart injury.
Therefore, the level of troponin after vaccination is no higher, and sometimes even lower, than what could occur after an intense physical activity. Furthermore, the levels of hs-cTnT fell rapidly. Half of the participants with elevated levels at day three were already back to normal levels at day four.
As explained, elevated troponin can indicate damage to the heart cells. So it is important to directly examine the heart, using imaging or electrocardiogram (ECG) to check whether the heart is working properly. The study did just that and found that none of the participants had alterations in their ECG, and no definitive cases of myocarditis were found. Upon the follow-up at thirty days post-vaccination, none of them showed any major cardiac adverse events.
Therefore, there were no detectable or lasting cardiac consequences from COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Proponents of the claim like Campbell and the Gateway Pundit promoted a dire account of the study’s results on elevated hs-cTnT that ignored the other results indicating no lasting changes to heart function. By doing so, they conveyed a distorted and exaggerated vision of the study’s message.
In a further misrepresentation of the study’s results, the Gateway Pundit also inaccurately claimed that the level of troponin was still above normal in half the participants one month later. In fact, the study didn’t perform any hs-cTnT measurement at one month post-vaccination, and as explained above, half the participants had already shown normal troponin levels by day four post-vaccination.
Similarly, Campbell claimed that people who had done strenuous exercise were excluded from the study beforehand. This is also false. While none of the participants reported such exercise, this wasn’t an exclusion criterion in the study.
The study acknowledged that “COVID-19 associates with a substantially higher risk for myocarditis than mRNA vaccination, and myocarditis related to COVID-19 infection has shown a higher mortality than myocarditis related to mRNA-vaccination”[1,5,6]. Indeed, contrary to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, COVID-19 can cause severe cardiovascular problems and is more likely to cause such problems[7,8].
Therefore, while the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines may cause mild and transient injury in heart cells, it reduces the risk of serious and possibly fatal cardiovascular complications from COVID-19. This is an important piece of information, necessary to fully assess the risk-benefit ratio of vaccination, that the claim overlooked. On balance, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh its risks.
However, the levels of elevated troponin observed in the study are moderate, similar to what can be observed after an intense exercise and may not be of clinical significance. The researchers also used direct methods of examining heart function, such as medical imaging and electrocardiograms, and didn’t detect any heart issues among vaccine recipients.
Therefore, those who framed the study as showing that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were causing unexpected and dangerous damage to people’s hearts are exaggerating the results. As Mueller told Lead Stories: “Unfortunately, even now in Summer 2023 it seems difficult to have a balanced discussion on this side effect [myocardial injury]. Some people as [Campbell] massively exaggerate, others completely ignore it”.
A research team led by cardiologist Christian Mueller published a study in July 2023 investigating the effects of the Moderna mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccination on the heart[1]. Soon after the study’s publication, posts on social media circulated claiming that the study had revealed that mRNA vaccines were damaging people’s hearts.
It’s not the first time this research team’s findings have been used as a basis for misinformation. Similar posts occurred after Mueller presented the team’s main findings in 2022 at a scientific conference. Health Feedback explained why those posts were erroneous in a previous review.
Of the now-published study, the Gateway Pundit said that “1 in 35 people showed signs of heart damage after taking the Moderna COVID19 vaccine” and called it a “kill shot”. The Pundit added that “They forced Americans to take this vaccine to work and attend public events”, implying that vaccine mandates combined with the use of mRNA vaccines had put people at risk.
YouTuber and retired nurse instructor John Campbell also claimed that the study had identified an “off the scale” rate of vaccine-associated heart injury, repeating the “1 in 35” figure at length and describing this finding as “astounding”. He also commented that “we just don’t take this kind of risk, it’s just complete madness”.
Overall, such language gave the impression that the study showed that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines would lead to serious heart problems and placed people at an unnecessary risk.
Both the Gateway Pundit and Campbell have previously spread COVID-19 and vaccine disinformation, as we and others established on multiple occasions.
What the study did
To understand why these claims are misleading, we must first understand what the study did. The research team recruited volunteers who were planning to receive a third dose of Moderna mRNA vaccine (booster dose). The researchers excluded from the study people who had a cardiac event or surgery the month before. This is because these people are already likely to show signs of heart damage for reasons unrelated to the vaccine.The researchers then measured the amount of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) in the volunteers’ blood three days after vaccination. Hs-cTnT is a protein present within the cells of the heart. When heart cells develop physical damage, even mild damage, some cells may rupture and release hs-cTnT into the blood. An elevated amount of hs-cTnT in the blood may thus indicate a possible heart injury.
From the total number of participants with elevated hs-cTnT, the researchers excluded those where an explanation other than vaccination was likely. For example, they excluded cases where a participant had a stably elevated hs-cTnT, indicating a possible chronic heart condition, or those whose preexisting troponin level was just slightly above the normal range.
This left 2.8% participants without other clear explanation for their elevated hs-cTnT than the fact that they had a booster shot. The researchers concluded from that that these people had a mRNA vaccine-associated heart injury. This is where the “1 in 35” figure repeated by the Gateway Pundit and Campbell comes from—2.8% is equivalent to 1 in 35.
Levels of hs-TnTc are only moderately and transiently elevated, the clinical relevance is debatable
The “1 in 35” figure is thus accurate. The problem is that Campbell and the Gateway Pundit’s coverage overlooked the study’s limitations and exaggerated the significance of this figure.First, the researchers didn’t measure the baseline level of hs-cTnT before vaccination. Even though they took care to exclude participants whose elevated troponin could be explained by something other than the vaccine, we still don’t know whether all the remaining participants had pre-vaccination troponin levels within the normal range. Some of them may have a higher than normal level of hs-cTnT for whichever reason and would be erroneously counted among the 2.8%.
Second, the elevation of troponin levels was only moderate and transient. Some of those who propagated the claim, like Campbell or the Gateway Pundit, did acknowledge this, but glossed over it and didn’t include it when assessing the importance of that finding. This is problematic because such a moderate increase might not be of much clinical significance, according to some experts.
Cardiologist Anish Koka explained on Twitter that the level of troponin was actually close to what is considered a normal level.
James de Lemos, a cardiology professor at the University of Texas, told Lead Stories that “these small troponin elevations are not likely events of clinical significance”.
Lead Stories also talked to William Schaffner, a professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University, who emphasized that the troponin elevation was “mild, temporary and totally without symptoms”.
In a similar vein, James Lawler, a professor in the division of infectious diseases of the University of Nebraska, told Lead Stories that “All of these were mild elevations […] and most seemed to revert to normal quickly”.
In fact, hs-cTnT can rise to a similar level even after normal physical activity, like intensive exercise, as scientist Susan Oliver pointed out in her review of Campbell’s video. A meta-analysis of studies on troponin levels during physical activity found that endurance exercise increased the level of hs-cTnT by an average of 26 ng/L[2]. After an intense swimming exercise, hs-cTnT peaked between 11.9 and 22.7 ng/L in teenagers and adults[3]. Similarly, the median level of hs-cTnT rose to 21 ng/L in adults and children hours after having played football (soccer)[4].
By comparison, the hs-cTnT level was only 5 ng/L among the participants in the study, and reached 13.5 ng/mL among the 2.8% who may have had a mRNA vaccine-associated heart injury.
Therefore, the level of troponin after vaccination is no higher, and sometimes even lower, than what could occur after an intense physical activity. Furthermore, the levels of hs-cTnT fell rapidly. Half of the participants with elevated levels at day three were already back to normal levels at day four.
As explained, elevated troponin can indicate damage to the heart cells. So it is important to directly examine the heart, using imaging or electrocardiogram (ECG) to check whether the heart is working properly. The study did just that and found that none of the participants had alterations in their ECG, and no definitive cases of myocarditis were found. Upon the follow-up at thirty days post-vaccination, none of them showed any major cardiac adverse events.
Therefore, there were no detectable or lasting cardiac consequences from COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Proponents of the claim like Campbell and the Gateway Pundit promoted a dire account of the study’s results on elevated hs-cTnT that ignored the other results indicating no lasting changes to heart function. By doing so, they conveyed a distorted and exaggerated vision of the study’s message.
In a further misrepresentation of the study’s results, the Gateway Pundit also inaccurately claimed that the level of troponin was still above normal in half the participants one month later. In fact, the study didn’t perform any hs-cTnT measurement at one month post-vaccination, and as explained above, half the participants had already shown normal troponin levels by day four post-vaccination.
Similarly, Campbell claimed that people who had done strenuous exercise were excluded from the study beforehand. This is also false. While none of the participants reported such exercise, this wasn’t an exclusion criterion in the study.
COVID-19 is more likely cause serious cardiovascular problems compared to COVID-19 vaccination
Not only did the claim exaggerate the significance of the elevated hs-cTnT reported in the study, but it also failed to put these results in perspective with the risks of COVID-19 itself.The study acknowledged that “COVID-19 associates with a substantially higher risk for myocarditis than mRNA vaccination, and myocarditis related to COVID-19 infection has shown a higher mortality than myocarditis related to mRNA-vaccination”[1,5,6]. Indeed, contrary to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, COVID-19 can cause severe cardiovascular problems and is more likely to cause such problems[7,8].
Therefore, while the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines may cause mild and transient injury in heart cells, it reduces the risk of serious and possibly fatal cardiovascular complications from COVID-19. This is an important piece of information, necessary to fully assess the risk-benefit ratio of vaccination, that the claim overlooked. On balance, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh its risks.
Conclusion
The study by Mueller and his team offers new information on the effect of mRNA vaccination on the heart. They found that booster shots caused a mild increase in hs-cTnT that could indicate transient and moderate damage to the cardiac cells.However, the levels of elevated troponin observed in the study are moderate, similar to what can be observed after an intense exercise and may not be of clinical significance. The researchers also used direct methods of examining heart function, such as medical imaging and electrocardiograms, and didn’t detect any heart issues among vaccine recipients.
Therefore, those who framed the study as showing that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were causing unexpected and dangerous damage to people’s hearts are exaggerating the results. As Mueller told Lead Stories: “Unfortunately, even now in Summer 2023 it seems difficult to have a balanced discussion on this side effect [myocardial injury]. Some people as [Campbell] massively exaggerate, others completely ignore it”.
REFERENCES
- 1 – Buergin et al. (2023) Sex-specific differences in myocardial injury incidence after COVID-19 mRNA-1273 Booster Vaccination. European Journal of Heart Failure.
- 2 – Sedaghat-Hamedani et al. (2015) Biomarker Changes after Strenuous Exercise Can Mimic Pulmonary Embolism and Cardiac Injury—A Metaanalysis of 45 Studies. Clinical Chemistry.
- 3 – Legaz-Arrese et al. (2017) Cardiac Biomarker Release after Endurance Exercise in Male and Female Adults and Adolescents. The Journal of Pediatrics.
- 4 – Cirer-Sastre et al. (2020) Cardiac Troponin T Release after Football 7 in Healthy Children and Adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
- 5 – Heymans et al. (2022) Myocarditis Following SARS-CoV2 mRNA Vaccination Against COVID-19: Facts and Open Questions. Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
- 6 – Lai et al. (2022) Prognosis of Myocarditis Developing After mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination Compared With Viral Myocarditis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
- 7 – Liu et al. ( 2023) Normal high-sensitivity cardiac troponin for ruling-out inpatient mortality in acute COVID-19. PLoS One.
- 8 – Wibowo et al. (2021) Prognostic performance of troponin in COVID-19: A diagnostic meta-analysis and meta-regression. International Journal of Infectious Diseases.
Why do you use female emojis, Bill? Did the vaccine cause you to grow a vagina?
