CLAIM
Study shows myocarditis from COVID-19 vaccination carries serious risk of death
DETAILS
Misrepresents a complex reality: It is mandatory for healthcare workers to report serious adverse events to VAERS regardless of the cause. The studys observation that the majority of VAERS reports were related to hospitalization and death may well have been due to this reporting policy. Multiple studies have shown that the majority of people who develop vaccine-associated myocarditis fully recover without complications. Misleading: Numerous studies have shown that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines outweigh their risks. It is COVID-19 that is associated with a greater risk of heart problems, blood clotting disorders, and other complications.
KEY TAKE AWAY
Studies have shown that people vaccinated against COVID-19 are less likely to develop severe disease, require hospitalization, and die from COVID-19 compared to unvaccinated people. While COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a slightly elevated risk of myocarditis and a particular blood clotting disorder, it is COVID-19 that is associated with a greater risk of these illnesses and other complications. On balance, the evidence gathered so far by studies shows that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the risks, not the other way around.
It cited the studys conclusion stating that COVID-19 vaccination is strongly associated with a serious adverse safety signal of myocarditis, particularly in children and young adults resulting in hospitalization and death.
Similar claims also appeared in the Washington Times and on X (formerly Twitter). Overall, they received more than 6,800 engagements on social media platforms, including Facebook and X/Twitter.
As we will explain below, the article repeats a host of already-refuted claims and inaccurately portrays the risk of myocarditis posed by COVID-19 vaccination. The study that it relies on also contains important limitations and doesnt provide reliable evidence for its claims.
The study in Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety was authored by computational biologist Jessica Rose, masters student Nicolas Hulscher, and cardiologist Peter McCullough.
Both Rose and McCullough have previously spread vaccine misinformation. Hulscher, according to his LinkedIn profile, is a masters student in epidemiology at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor. Notably, Hulscher and McCullough co-authored a preprint that claimed 76% of deaths in vaccinated people were due to COVID-19 vaccines. Health Feedback covered the preprints questionable methods and conclusions here.
The stated aim of the study was to determine possible links between COVID-19 vaccination and myocarditis, using reports in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), particularly associations between age, gender, and dose of vaccine.
Its worth noting that the link between myocarditis and COVID-19 mRNA vaccines was already identified by studies published in 2021. These studies showed that it is young males, particularly adolescents and young adults typically below the age of 30, who are most likely to develop myocarditis, and that myocarditis is most likely to occur after the second dose[1-3].
And myocarditis has since been acknowledged by public health agencies in Europe, the U.S., Australia, and elsewhere, as a potential side effect of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, particularly in young males.
Rose et al. reported the same trends observed in earlier studies, demonstrated by the following three statements:
This side effect was mostly reported in young individuals, especially males. Myocarditis was more likely following a second dose of vaccine. individuals under the age of 30 were more prone to acquire myocarditis from COVID-19 vaccination compared to those aged 30 and above
It also reported that there were a total of 3,078 reports, or 0.3% of all adverse events, related to myocarditis.
One of the red flags in the study shows up in the authors classification of these events as COVID-19 vaccine-related, despite the fact that VAERS reports alone are insufficient to establish that a case of myocarditis was caused by the vaccine. The same red flag appears in the authors claim that deaths reported to VAERS were also caused by the COVID-19 vaccines.
This is not to say that VAERS reports have no place in determining whether an adverse event could be caused by a vaccine. In fact, VAERS reports were among the data that clued the CDC into the association between myocarditis and COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. But this was only accomplished after additional investigation into the reported cases and statistical analyses.
The authors also postulated that myocarditis cases could present as sudden deaththe language echoing the died suddenly dog whistle used by opponents of COVID-19 vaccination.
To do this, they cited two VAERS reports. One was a 33-year-old male whose death was attributed to myocarditis following an autopsy, and who received his last vaccine dose nearly two years ago.
The other was a 15-year-old male who became significantly ill four days before he diedrendering the authors interpretation of this as a sudden death debatableand whose cause of death was attributed to myocarditis of unknown cause. According to the VAERS report, he received his last vaccine dose roughly a year ago.
However, neither of the cases above are consistent with the pattern of vaccine-induced myocarditis. Studies have observed that the onset of myocarditis symptoms typically begin within the first week after vaccination[2,4], although a range of up to a month has also been observed[5]. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control states that myocarditis due to COVID-19 vaccination most frequently occurs within seven days of vaccination.
Given the very long period of time that had passed since their last vaccine dose and the fact that myocarditis can be caused by multiple things, not just COVID-19 vaccines, the authors seem to have jumped to conclusions in attributing both deaths to COVID-19 vaccination without additional information.
Rose et al. also alleged that myocarditis after vaccination entailed a serious risk of hospitalization and death, based on their finding that 76% of cases resulted in emergency care and hospitalization.
However, this fails to acknowledge that reporting serious adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination, regardless of whether the vaccine caused the adverse event, is mandatory. Per the VAERS website, serious adverse events include Inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization and death.
The potential skew in reports brought about by this policy, however, wasnt accounted for by the authors.
Contrary to the conclusions of Rose et al., several studies that examined the severity of vaccine-induced myocarditis have found that the majority of patients fully recover without any complications[4,6,7].
Finally, the authors misrepresented a few studies it cited to support its claims. For example, it cited a study by Swank et al. as finding circulating Spike protein among the vaccinated with post-acute sequelae for up to 1 year.
We reached out to the studys corresponding author, David Walt, a professor of pathology at Brigham and Womens Hospital and a core faculty member at Harvards Wyss Institute. In an email, Walt stated that this incorrectly described the studys findings, which was about long COVID patients, not vaccinated people.
He also pointed out that their findings had been mischaracterized by Rose et al., stating It is NOT the full spike protein [detected in vaccinated people], as stated. We found that the S1 fragment of the spike protein is detectable for 3 to 7 days post-vaccination and is undetectable after that.
He clarified that it was in long COVID patients that the spike protein was detected. This is NOT caused by vaccination, but by infection, he said.
He stated that vaccine-induced myocarditis is very rare and that the levels of these proteins (S1 and spike) we are detecting in all our studies are very low. Our test is ultrasensitive. The levels are not at the concentration that would cause systemic inflammation.
The claims in the article are exaggerations, he said.
The claim in the Blaze article that the vaccines never stopped transmission is a refrain that is echoed time and time again by those who oppose COVID-19 vaccination. As Health Feedback explained previously, the claim is an example of the nirvana fallacy, in which a solution is rejected simply because it doesnt work perfectly.
Such an expectation is unrealistic as no vaccine exists that works 100% of the time.
Multiple studies have shown that the COVID-19 vaccines reduce the likelihood of an infected person transmitting the virus to others, such as between people living in the same household[8-13]. The vaccines did so with varying degrees of effectiveness, depending on factors like the variant and the amount of time that had elapsed since the last vaccine dose. Although imperfect, they did reduce transmission.
Secondly, while Sweden, Norway, and Finland did suspend the use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for young men, this can in no way be interpreted to mean Europeans [] have spared their children from the novel vaccines. For one, Sweden, Norway, and Finland dont restrict the use of other COVID-19 vaccines, such as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. And many other European countries have placed no age restrictions on COVID-19 vaccination in the first place.
The Blaze article relied on the study by Rose et al. to suggest that the risks of the COVID-19 vaccines are greater than its benefits. However, as the study didnt undertake any examination of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination nor did it make a risk-benefit assessment, it is unequipped to support the suggestion made by The Blaze.
Firstly, studies have shown that people vaccinated against COVID-19 are less likely to develop severe disease, to require hospitalization, and die compared to unvaccinated people[14-16]. Thus, getting vaccinated reduces the risk of COVID-19 complications, which is the primary goal of vaccination.
Secondly, while COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a slightly elevated risk of myocarditis and a particular blood clotting disorder, studies have found that the risk of heart complications, including myocarditis, associated with COVID-19 is greater than that of COVID-19 vaccines[17,18].
Indeed, the incidence of post-vaccine myocarditis has been estimated to be as high as 35.9 per 100,000 people. In contrast, that of post-COVID-19 myocarditis is 64.9 per 100,000 people[19].
The American Heart Association considers the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines to outweigh their risks. An expert consensus by the American College of Cardiology also found that a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio exists with the COVID-19 vaccine for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far[20].
Figure 1 There is a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio for COVID-19 mRNA vaccine recipients at highest risk for post-vaccination myocarditis[20].
COVID-19 is also associated with a greater risk of developing other health problems, such as blood clotting disorders[21,22] and neurological problems like fatigue and brain fog[23-25].
Finally, studies so far havent shown that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with a greater risk of all-cause deaths. A CDC study examining the period between December 2020 and July 2021 found a lower non-COVID-19 mortality in vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people[26]. Another study in more than 520,000 people found that the all-cause mortality was 37% lower in the vaccinated group[27].
On balance, the evidence gathered so far by studies runs counter to the claim made in the Blaze article, showing that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the risks, not the other way around.
The study by Rose et al., used by The Blaze to suggest that myocarditis linked to COVID-19 vaccines carries serious risks, contains important limitations and comes to conclusions that cannot be substantiated by the data it collected. It also grossly misinterpreted at least one study it cited to support its conclusions.
Multiple published studies have shown that the clinical course of COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis is mild for the majority, and contrary to the claims by Rose et al. and The Blaze, dont entail serious risks of hospitalization and death. Studies have also shown that it is COVID-19not COVID-19 vaccinesthat is associated with a greater risk of cardiovascular diseases and other complications. Reliable scientific studies show that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the risks.
Researchers have found that getting a vaccine booster shot in a different arm from the one you got the first in may improve the bodys immune response up to four-fold. While they exclusively studied responses to the COVID-19 vaccine, they suspect this effect may be seen with other multidose vaccines.
When you get a vaccine, do you have a preferred arm that you present to the health professional administering it? Many opt to have vaccines, including booster shots, injected into the same arm, usually to prevent the muscle ache or heaviness that follows from affecting the use of their dominant arm or hand.
Historically, the choice of arm was not thought to matter to vaccine effectiveness. However, a new study by researchers at Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) has found that when it comes to multidose vaccines, people who have one dose in one arm and the second in the other have an improved immune response.
This question hasnt really been extensively studied, so we decided to check it out, said Marcel Curlin, the studys corresponding author. It turned out to be one of the more significant things weve found, and its probably not limited to just COVID vaccines. We may be seeing an important immunologic function.
The researchers recruited 947 OHSU employees who agreed to receive two-dose vaccinations against the SARS-CoV-2 virus early in the pandemic. They were randomized to get the second (booster) dose in the same or the opposite arm as the first dose. Blood samples were collected at various times after boosting and tested for antibody response.
While both groups had a similar antibody response at week two, those whod had contralateral shots that is, a shot in each arm showed a substantial increase in the magnitude and breadth of their antibody response by weeks three and four that progressively increased over time to up to a four-fold increase.
Additionally, the researchers found a heightened immune response to the original SARS-CoV-2 strain and an even stronger response to the Omicron variant that emerged approximately a year after the second vaccine was given.
Although the researchers cant explain this effect, they speculate that injecting a vaccine into each arm produces a new immune response in the corresponding lymph nodes.
By switching arms, you basically have [immune] memory formation in two locations instead of one, Curlin said.
Although the current study focused on SARS-CoV-2, the researchers say that the improved immune response seen with contralateral injections might apply to other multidose vaccinations. Further research will determine if thats the case, especially in children. But at this stage, theyre not advocating for a change in practice based on the results of this study.
The study was published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation.
Source: OHSU
I STILL have my immunisation card from my childhood days, thanks to my mom. My parents understood that immunisation was serious business. In the workplace, not much is said about taking advantage of vaccines in preserving health.
Vaccines are among the most cost-effective and impactful tools for preserving health, and vaccination is a key strategy in preventive medicine. The American College of Preventive Medicine defines preventive medicine as promoting preventive health to improve well-being by preventing disease, disability and death. Because we spend a lot of time at work, the workplace presents an opportunity for preventive medicine, including vaccine-preventable diseases.
Some employers support workplace immunisation programmes as part of health promotion for staff. About one in 10 working-age persons gets the flu each year. A worker with the flu could lose more than three workdays. However, whereas the benefits of the flu vaccine in decreasing infections, hospitalisations, and deaths among the elderly and persons with chronic illnesses are well documented, we question whether there are health and economic benefits of immunisation programmes that also target working-age persons with no medical conditions.
For low- and middle-income countries like Jamaica, cost-benefit considerations could start with looking at the possible worst-case scenario. Studies of this issue are mainly carried out in high-income countries, primarily the US, with highly privatised healthcare, which is different from countries in which health systems are fully or partially nationalised. A conservative approach considers costs related to workdays, vaccines, doctors visits, medications, and hospitalisation regardless of who pays insurer, employer and/or worker. One such study was published in the highly regarded Journal of the American Medical Association.
Conducted across two influenza seasons among 18-64-year-olds with no medical conditions, this study yielded invaluable insights. They found that the flu vaccine decreased illness and absenteeism by a third and decreased doctors visits by 42 per cent compared to unvaccinated workers. Benefits were observed during the flu season when there was a good match between the flu vaccine and circulating flu strains. The year without a good match showed no protection. They concluded that there was no economic benefit from a workplace flu vaccine programme for most years for working-age adults with no chronic medical conditions.
This may be just where we would want to start a conversation about the cost-benefit impact of immunisation programmes delivered in workplaces across Jamaica. Chronic medical conditions are a growing concern affecting all age groups and associated with increased vulnerability to infectious diseases.
A benefit of vaccination is reducing the spread of infections. The negative impact of vaccine-preventable diseases on quality of life and productivity, even after recovery, should be considered. These factors are likely to tip the equation in favour of a positive return on investment.
A systematic review of studies on this issue published in the European Journal of Public Health in 2023 lends support. A collaboration between French scientists and Malakoff-Humanis, a private insurance group in France, highlighted that 40 per cent of randomised clinical trials (RCTs), the gold standard for health research, showed positive cost-benefit ratios or what they termed positive return-on-prevention (ROP). Only 15 per cent of RCTs reviewed showed a negative ROP; others were neutral or inconclusive. In countries like Jamaica, where government-supported health services are widely available, immunisation programmes delivered in the workplace setting through private-public partnerships are likely to have positive return-on-prevention.
To foster vaccine uptake by workers, the Community Preventive Services Task Force in the US recommends that employers implement occupational health services, schedule reminders, reduce out-of-pocket costs by covering vaccine costs, and include immunisations in health plans. In Jamaica, health insurance typically does not cover immunisations unless employers request special arrangements. Organisations could prioritise vaccines for staff and their dependents that address the most pressing public health needs of our time. For example, the vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV) is effective in preventing cancer of the cervix and may be appropriate for younger staff and dependents. Cervical cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women in Jamaica. Additionally, promoting the annual flu vaccine, as well as catch-up vaccines for adults with incomplete immunisation, including against measles, would be timely in light of rising cases of vaccine-preventable diseases globally.
Yohann White is a medical doctor and certified infection prevention and control professional. Send feedback to yohann.white@caribewellness.com or editorial@gleanerjm.com
Researchers are always looking for ways to make vaccines more effective, but the latest find is a bit of an unusual one. According to a new study, alternating arms when receiving the first two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine can modestly improve the bodys immune response.
The potential impact of switching arms for multi-dose vaccines has long been a subject of research, albeit with mixed results. Researchers from the Oregon Health & Science University looked to build upon the limitations of these previous studies, recruiting a large sample of people and tracking their immune responses for longer.
After receiving two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, the team followed 947 participants over the course of just over a year, collecting blood samples at various points and analyzing them for the level of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2.
Those who had received the second shot in their other arm were found to have higher levels of antibodies in their blood compared to those who had received it in the same arm, with the effect increasing over time. The improved response was first made clear three weeks after the second dose, and by 14 months after vaccination, the increase was 1.4-fold.
The study also put 108 people into 54 pairs, matched based on age, gender, and time between vaccination. One person in the pair received the two doses in one arm, while the other received them in both. Although there didnt appear to be much of a difference two weeks after the second dose, after three weeks, those who received the doses in alternate arms showed significantly higher SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels.
Quite why this happens is not entirely clear, though the researchers think it could have something to do with activating new immune responses in the different lymph nodes in each arm. By switching arms, you basically have memory formation in two locations instead of one, explained senior author Marcel Curlin in a statement.
The results of the study are in contrast with research published last year that suggested receiving the initial two vaccines and boosters in the same arm could be the most effective method. However, it should be noted that the earlier study only looked at the immune response at two weeks, not three which could explain why they may not have seen the same effect.
Though the effect seen in the current study was significant, there was a range of responses, all the way from 1.3 to 4-fold increase. However, Curlin said that any incremental improvement might save a lot of lives.
Its hoped that the improved immune response seen in this particular study might also be seen in other multidose vaccines, though the team cautioned that further research would be required for both those and COVID-19 vaccines before any official clinical recommendations could be made.
Im not making recommendations at this point, because we need to understand this a lot better, Curlin told The New York Times. [But] all things being equal, we ought to consider switching up the arms.
The study is published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.
As outbreaks of measles spread throughout the world, anti-vaccine activists arent just urging people not to get vaccinated theyre taking a page from a well-worn playbook, falsely downplaying the dangers from the highly contagious respiratory disease.
The truth is, measles is not a super severe serious illness when youre a child, Mary Holland, president of the countrys best-funded anti-vaccine organization, Childrens Health Defense, said last week on the groups online morning show. Childrens Health Defense was founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who took a leave from the organization in April to run for president.
Holland, a lawyer, called government responses to recent outbreaks fearmongering and crying wolf.
Its a couple days of spots and then you move on, she said.
But national health agencies warn the fear of measles is well-founded.
Measles a disease so contagious it acts as a bellwether for threats from other infectious diseases is marked by fever, flu-like symptoms and an itchy rash, and sometimes comes with dire complications including pneumonia, seizures and brain damage. For every 1,000 cases of measles, about 200 children may be hospitalized, 50 may get pneumonia, one child may develop brain swelling along with deafness or disability, and between one and three may die.
Despite the availability of an incredibly effective vaccine, the disease is spreading worldwide. The reasons behind the surge are complex. For countries in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, there are issues of access; childhood vaccine campaigns suffered when Covid weakened already-stretched public health systems. Europe, the U.K. and the U.S. experienced similar, if smaller-scale, disruptions to their childhood vaccine programs during Covid. Rising vaccine skepticism plays a smaller but significant part.
Last month, the World Health Organization announced an alarming 45-fold increase in measles in Europe from 2022 to 2023, while health officials in the U.K. declared a national incident stemming from an outbreak of hundreds of cases in the West Midlands, warning of a likely spread to other regions. U.K. officials attribute the rise to a drop in vaccine uptake.
Across the U.S., state and regional health agencies have been announcing cases of measles in their communities. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued an advisory last week for providers to stay alert for measles cases, citing 23 confirmed cases since Dec. 1, mostly among unvaccinated children.
Anti-vaccine activists and influencers are unfazed.
Mother and wellness influencers with tens of thousands of followers on Instagram have reacted to the recent outbreaks with posts warning their audience not to buy into the hype. As the news tries to fear-monger about the measles outbreak, one home birth advocate posted, remember that the vaccine is more dangerous than the actual illness. (This is false.)
Other mom influencers posted memes tapping into nostalgia for a time when some parents intentionally exposed their young children to measles, mumps and rubella with parties, as the diseases were considered serious, but less harmful for young children. These planned contaminations largely ended with the availability of vaccines, which offered the preferable opportunity to avoid the diseases in childhood and beyond.
Before a measles vaccine became available in 1963, the U.S. saw an estimated millions of cases per year, tens of thousands of related hospitalizations, and hundreds of deaths, according to the CDC. At the time, compared to polio and smallpox, measles was considered a milder disease, but riding a wave of success from those immunization efforts, the federal government launched a vaccine push to eradicate measles and by 1969, cases had fallen dramatically.
While pockets of distrust for vaccines have existed as long as vaccines themselves, certain events most notably the publication of since-discredited research by disgraced doctor Andrew Wakefield supercharged the anti-vaccine movement and have powered the enduring and false belief that vaccines lead to autism and other maladies.
The tactic of minimizing the threat of vaccine-preventable illnesses is nothing new. Anti-vaccine activists in the 1800s dismissed the dangers of smallpox as senseless panic ginned up by doctors and health officials. And during Covid a disease that claimed over 1 million American lives activists claimed through debunked documentaries and conspiracy-theory-laden books that the vaccines were more dangerous than the disease.
In 2019, as measles surged through the U.S. at a rate not seen in decades, then-President Donald Trump reversed his previously hesitant stance to urge parents to get their children vaccinated. In response, weeks later, the second best-funded anti-vaccine organization, the Informed Consent Action Network, released Measles for Dumbies, a video guide for how to identify, understand and refute mainstream misinformation, about what Del Bigtree, the groups executive director and now director of communications for the Kennedy campaign, called a benign childhood disease.
By December 2019, a measles outbreak in Samoa where anti-vaccine activists including Kennedy had advocated against measles-mumps-rubella vaccines had killed dozens of children and babies, underscoring the consequences of low vaccination rates. Kennedy told NBC News last year that he discounts the official cause of those deaths, believing despite evidence to the contrary that the vaccine, not measles, was to blame.
Kennedy has made light of measles for years. In 2021, at an Amish country fair in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, he praised low vaccine rates and warned the audience that the government was coming for the Amish.
I am a measles survivor, Kennedy said sarcastically as the crowd roared with laughter. It was extraordinary. Im very, very lucky to have lived through that nightmare because we had to stay at home and watch TV the whole week with all of my brothers and sisters. It was horrible.
What is the cure for measles? he continued. Chicken soup and Vitamin A. Neither of those things can be patented.
Kennedy went on to suggest that pharmaceutical companies were ignoring harms from the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine a claim without evidence to make permanent customers of injured children.
Asked for a comment, Stefanie Spear, the Kennedy campaigns press secretary, said in an email: The reason Mr. Kennedy was making light of measles infection is because his generation considered it a routine childhood illness.
Spear added that measles deaths were relatively rare before the vaccine was invented. Virtually every one of our grandparents who were alive before 1960 caught the measles and survived it, she said. We would not be having this conversation if our grandparents had died from measles.
Nostalgic stories like Kennedys remain one of the anti-vaccine movements go-to modern talking points, illustrated most often by a piece of pop culture posing as evidence a 50-year-old episode of The Brady Bunch. The clip, in which the Brady children contract and recover from measles with little fanfare or seeming concern from their sitcom parents, went so viral in 2019 that a former star from the show spoke out against it. The clip is going around again in anti-vaccine circles.
Its a campaign fueled by selective memory, and one with senseless consequences, said Dr. Paul Offit, the director of the Vaccine Education Center at Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia and a frequent target of the anti-vaccine movement.
Most everybody who was born before a vaccine was available had measles. I had measles as did all my friends. I lived, but not everybody did, Offit said. It is galling that people think if they dont see somebody die right next to them then it never happened.
Offit mentioned the 1991 measles outbreak in Philadelphia that started in a church community. By the time health officials had it contained, 1,400 people, mostly unvaccinated preschoolers, had been infected. Nine children died.
Measles means suffering, hospitalizations, ICU admissions and the occasional death, Offit said. Kids with measles are sick. Its a miserable illness.
Less talked about, Offit said, is an extremely rare condition, subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, or SSPE, a fatal disorder of the brain that can manifest about seven years after a measles infection.
This is a preventable illness, Offit said. "We could eliminate this virus from the world if we wanted to.
Elimination would rely on vaccines, which are widely available, safe, effective, and under constant threat by a growing anti-vaccine movement.
Brandy Zadrozny is a senior reporter for NBC News. She covers misinformation, extremism and the internet.
Thank you for your interest in supporting Kaiser Health News (KHN), the nations leading nonprofit newsroom focused on health and health policy. We distribute our journalism for free and without advertising through media partners of all sizes and in communities large and small. We appreciate all forms of engagement from our readers and listeners, and welcome your support.
KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). You can support KHN by making a contribution to KFF, a non-profit charitable organization that is not associated with Kaiser Permanente.
Click the button below to go to KFFs donation page which will provide more information and FAQs. Thank you!
AndreyPopov / iStock
A new study of almost 200,000 newborns in Sweden and Norway shows that maternal receipt of the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy poses no risk to infants, and instead prevents babies from suffering serious complications.
Moreover, the mortality rate for babies born to mothers who were vaccinated during pregnancy was half the rate of those whose mothers were unvaccinated. The study appeared yesterday in JAMA. The authors caution, however, that they were unable to explain why the mortality risk was so reduced among infants whose mothers were vaccinated.
"A direct vaccine effect is unlikely," said Mikael Norman, PhD, first author of the study in a press release from the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, where he practices. "Previous studies have shown that the vaccine does not cross the placenta and that it cannot be found in umbilical cord bloodNo matter how we look at it, the finding remains and therefore, we cannot say what the lower risk of death among infants of vaccinated women relates to."
The study included national birth registry data from births from gestational week 22 and onwards after COVID-19 vaccines were available in both countries. Babies included in the study were born from June 2021 to January 2023.
In total, 48% of mothers had been vaccinated with one or more doses of an mRNA vaccine against COVID-19 in pregnancies of 196,470 newborns.
In addition to lower mortality rates by a half, infants born to vaccinated mothers had lower odds for neonatal nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage (event rate, 1.7 vs 3.2/1,000; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 0.99), and hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (1.8 vs 2.7/1000; aOR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.96).
There were no cases of myocarditis or thrombocytopenia seen in the study, as well as no increased risk for respiratory distress syndrome or necrotizing enterocolitis.
These findings may provide reassurance to public health authorities, clinicians, pregnant individuals,and their families.
"These findings may provide reassurance to public health authorities, clinicians, pregnant individuals, and their families that infants are not at higher risk of adverse events due to COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy," the authors concluded.
About The Study:The bivalent COVID-19 vaccines protected children and adolescents against SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19 in this study including 2,959 participants ages 5 to 17 years. These data demonstrate the benefit of COVID-19 vaccine in children and adolescents. All eligible children and adolescents should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations.
Authors:Leora R. Feldstein, Ph.D., of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, is the corresponding author.
To access the embargoed study: Visit our For The Media website at this link https://media.jamanetwork.com/
(doi:10.1001/jama.2023.27022)
Editors Note:Please see the article for additional information, including other authors, author contributions and affiliations, conflict of interest and financial disclosures, and funding and support.
# # #
Embed this link to provide your readers free access to the full-text articleThis link will be live at the embargo timehttps://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/10.1001/jama.2023.27022?guestAccessKey=a75feed0-b6a9-4cd0-a32b-60bb296e3af0&utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_content=tfl&utm_term=020624
JAMA
If you feel like everyone around you is getting sick at work or at home with the flu, you're not alone.
Experts say DFW is seeing the strongest flu season the area has faced in years.
Doctors say North Texas is currently in the middle of the peak of flu season as of the beginning of February. The season typically starts in October.
A map from the Walgreens Flu Index backs it up. DFW ranks number two in the nation for flu activity this week, with heightened flu activity happening in this part of the country.
Flu season every year is going to peak right around now. January to February is always going to be the worst, said Dr. Joseph Chang, Chief Medical Officer for Parkland Health in Dallas. It starts to get better in March and then kind of goes away in April. So we're right the thick of it right now.
Dallas Childrens Medical Center tells NBC 5 that during the last week in January, they treated the most flu patients theyve had since 2022. New numbers showed that during the week beginning on Jan. 28, the hospital treated 720 flu cases systemwide.
The latest news from around North Texas.
Hospital staff said that number marked a 20% jump in cases over the week before - and the most patients treated in a week since 2022.
At Cook Children's Medical Center in Fort Worth, hundreds more patients are coming back positive with the flu than RSV or COVID currently.
Throughout the flu season, rumors swirl about the flu vaccine and just how effective it is.
Dr. Chang said the truth is, every year is a little bit different, and this year is not unlike the others.
If you'll recall the year before COVID, that was a particularly bad year for flu. That was mainly because the vaccine that year truly did not work as well, said Dr. Chang.
The reason for that is simple and has to do with the guessing game doctors must figure out before the flu season even starts.
Every year, the Centers for Disease Control decides what strains of the flu virus they will concentrate on for the year based on the flu season in the southern hemisphere, where the winter season just as the northern hemispheres begins. Travelers spread the flu strains around the globe, as winter seasons force more people indoors.
And then we make an educated guess as to what ours might be in relative to that, said Dr. Chang. Most years the flu vaccine is four strains of virus put into one vaccine. So, it's designed against four strains pretty much every single year. And again, that's an educated guess, because overall there are over a dozen flu strains that infect people at any given time.
Dr. Chang added, Now the thing to remember with the vaccines is that because all of the flu viruses are basically part of the same family if you get the vaccine, even if that year, the strains that are actually rolling around are not exactly the same as what is contained in the vaccine, you get a lot of good cross coverage anyway. So even when you see those years where the vaccine is not exactly matching up with what's going around, you're much better off getting the vaccine than not."
If you already got your flu vaccine earlier in the season, the effectiveness typically lasts for at least six months. The flu season still has about two months left, or eight weeks until it subsides.
Even if you run out and get it now, you will still be protected for about 4 to 6 weeks, Dr. Chang said. Four to six weeks of protection is better than zero.
For those who need financial assistance in getting a flu shot, Parklands Community Oriented Primary Care Centers offer free vaccines at no cost and no appointment necessary. To avoid a wait, Wednesdays are recommended. During Walk-In Wednesdays, a staff dedicated only to providing flu shots is available from 9 a.m. to noon and from 1 to 4 p.m.
Click here for a list of locations across DFW.
Across the largest cities in the U.S., the uptake on flu vaccinations has been split. While an average of 50.7% of people aged 65 and over were inoculated, some cities ranged much higher or lower. The efficacy of the flu vaccine is often argued, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) claims a 40% to 60% efficacy at reducing flu cases, but only when the strains in that year's vaccine match the spreading virus strains.
With an eye on flu vaccine preferences, SmartAsset analyzed data from Medicare to rank 100 cities based on the percentage of seniors who received the flu shot in 2023.
These Midwestern cities top the list for the highest rates of flu vaccinations. In Madison, WI, 69% of Medicare enrollees were vaccinated for the flu season. In Lincoln and Omaha, NE, that figure was 66% and 63%, respectively. In Minnesota, Minneapolis (62%) and St. Paul (62%) also made the top ranks.
Miami, FL has the lowest rate of flu shots. Only 34% of Miami seniors got the flu vaccine last year. El Paso, TX had the second-lowest rate at 36%, while 39% of seniors in Clark County, NV including Las Vegas, Henderson, North Las Vegas and Enterprise were inoculated.
The cities with the most seniors are split on flu shots. Seniors make up more than 22% of the population in Scottsdale, Port St. Lucie and Honolulu, and theres no distinct preference for or against the flu shot in these places. Respectively, 52%, 48% and 53% of seniors got the flu shot last year.
Madison, Wisconsin Madison leads the ranking with a 69% flu vaccination rate among seniors, who represent approximately 13.5% of the city's population. This adds up to 36,707 residents aged 65 and older.
Lincoln, Nebraska In Lincoln, 66% of seniors have received a flu shot in 2023. Seniors make up 15.3% of the population, which includes 44,656 residents aged 65+.
Omaha, Nebraska Omaha has a senior flu vaccination rate of 63%, with the 65+ demographic comprising 14.4% of its citizens. This adds up to 70,078 seniors.
Durham, North Carolina Durham reports a 62% vaccination rate among seniors. The city's population includes 13.8% of residents aged 65 and over, which totals 40,228 seniors.
St. Paul, Minnesota Approximately 62% of St. Paul's senior population have been vaccinated against the flu in 2023. Seniors constitute 13.0% of the city's population, with a total of 39,448 residents aged 65+.
Minneapolis, Minnesota Minneapolis also shows a 62% flu vaccination rate in seniors. This age group represents 11.13% of the city's populace with 47,298 seniors.
Raleigh, North Carolina Raleigh has a 61% flu vaccination rate among its senior citizens. The 65+ age bracket makes up 12.3% of the population, which adds up to 58,522 seniors.
St. Louis, Missouri St. Louis has a 60% flu vaccination rate for seniors, who make up 15.8% of its population. There are 45,176 residents aged 65 and older.
Baltimore, Maryland Baltimore's senior flu vaccination rate stands at 59%, with 89,326 seniors accounting for 15.7% of the population.
Plano, TexasPlano has a 59% vaccination rate among its senior citizens. The 65+ age group makes up 14.30% of the city's population, with a total of 41,479 seniors.
Data is for 2023 and comes from County Health Rankings & Roadmaps. The percentage of seniors with the flu shot is represented by the percentage of fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare enrollees that had an annual flu vaccination. Medicare enrollees must be at least 65 years old. Data was examined for the largest 100 cities for which data was available. Cities are mapped to county-level data.
Photo credit: iStock.com/FatCamera
The post Flu Vaccines Are Most Popular in These U.S. Cities 2024 Study appeared first on SmartReads by SmartAsset.
