I posted the Igor Chudov link. What are you talking about exactly?
My mistake, this is the actual study Igor mentions.....
https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.232244
Couple points of interest; as I read this....
"Unfortunately, in routine clinical practice, 18F FDG PET/CT is a terrible tracer with which to evaluate myocardial inflammation. This is because glucose is the normal source of energy for the myocardium—almost all patients have high myocardial uptake. Typical disease processes of interest (infection or inflammatory disease) also result in high myocardial uptake. Routine PET/CT cannot help to reliably identify higher activity due to inflammation on an already high background of normal myocardium. Special steps need to be taken."
This is in reference to the other study, from a Japanese physician. Also...
"The main results are 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 .001. This translates to only one time out of 1000 that these results would occur by chance.
These results are compelling, but we should remain suspicious without further analysis. There are simply too many things that can still go wrong with this comparison. Patients with cancer who get vaccinated tend to be older and perhaps at greater risk for being immunocompromised or needing chemotherapy. We do not know the full characteristics of vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients (including the course and nature of chemotherapy treatments). Prior studies showed that younger male individuals had more reports of vaccine-related myocarditis after their second dose of vaccine. Standardized uptake values are quantitative and useful, but metabolic derangements might also cause the same differences. In short, other differences besides vaccination could be responsible for differences between the two patient groups."
In summary he states:
"The investigators understood their first result was only the starting point. They next performed extensive sensitivity analyses (ie, looking at the same data from multiple different directions). What if we account for age differences between groups and the number of vaccinations? If mRNA vaccinations do cause asymptomatic myocardial inflammation, wouldn’t the effect be more likely shortly after vaccination rather than 6 months later? Many of us who had COVID-19 vaccines had flulike symptoms immediately after vaccination—perhaps those of us with common flulike reactions would have more myocardial inflammation as well? Could trained readers identify the differences visually? Or were the differences seen only after placing regions of interest on the heart that could be accidentally mispositioned? The list goes on. Great researchers are also skeptics—they need to prove the results to themselves.
Notably, the authors’ interrogation of their results held up to all these secondary ways of looking at their data. The authors were careful to conclude that in a subset of patients undergoing PET/CT and with low glucose levels and fasting, myocardial activity was greater in patients who received an mRNA vaccine than in those who did not. Greater myocardial activity after administration of an mRNA vaccine was present regardless of sex, age, or type of mRNA vaccine. Unfortunately, no myocardial enzyme analysis was available, and cardiac function was not available. In addition, the authors did not scrutinize the oncologic histories and treatments of their patient groups. Finally, in retrospective studies, there are always unknown factors that may lead to bias. Some patients get vaccinated, and some do not. In a retrospective study, we do not know if the reason individuals were vaccinated and had a PET/CT scan shortly thereafter has caused bias, potentially causing spurious results. The results are intriguing but unfortunately incomplete.
Vaccine manufacturers are aware of the adverse effects of mRNA vaccines. These adverse effects lead to vaccine hesitancy. The study results by Nakahara et al suggest that mild asymptomatic myocardial inflammation could be more common than we ever expected. This in turn would support a hypothesis of more severe systemic inflammation related to mRNA vaccination in some patients who present with symptomatic myocarditis. Fortunately, even with symptomatic myocarditis, most patients experience resolution of their symptoms within several days, most without permanent sequelae (
6). The next steps may involve manipulation of the mRNA vaccine or delivery system in an effort to reduce these adverse events."
It's a lot, and feel free to read the whole article but the bottom line for Dr Bloemke is we just don't know enough yet, and if someone does get Myocarditis as a result of the vaccine most times it will be minor and resolve quickly without permanent damage.
