(Image Credit: AdobeStock/Near)
Korean researchers reported that ptosis was associated with COVID-19 vaccination, particularly with the ChAdOx1 vaccine (AstraZeneca), while Guillain-Barr syndrome/Miller Fisher syndrome was associated with the COVID-19 infection,1 according to first authors Jae Yong Han, MD, and Sunyeup Kim, MD, from, respectively, the Department of Ophthalmology, Institute of Vision Research, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and the Department of Medical AI, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea.
With the number of infected individuals and vaccine recipients rising, a growing number of ocular adverse events, including neuro-ophthalmic adverse events, have been reported in individuals with the COVID-19 infection and vaccinated individuals.2-6 Other studies reported that COVID-19 was associated with optic neuritis7-9 and ophthalmoplegia was related to third or sixth cranial nerve palsy.10-16 Adverse events caused by the vaccine have been reported.1721 However, the investigators explained, it is unclear if COVID-19 infection and vaccination are related directly to neuro-ophthalmic adverse events.
They conducted a large nationwide, population-based, retrospective cohort study to determine if there is an association between COVID-19 infection and vaccination with neuro-ophthalmic adverse events.
About 8.5 million patients in the Korean National Health Claim Database were classified into 1 of 3 groups: controls, those with the COVID-19 infection, and those vaccinated against COVID-19. The researchers separately analyzed the early phase (within 60 days) and late phases (61180 days) to estimate the incidence rates and hazard ratio (HR) for each neuro-ophthalmic adverse event that included optic neuritis, papilledema, ischemic optic neuropathy, third nerve palsy, fourth nerve palsy, sixth nerve palsy, facial palsy, nystagmus, ptosis, blepharospasm, anomalies of pupillary function, and Guillain-Barr syndrome/Miller Fisher syndrome.
The authors reported that neuro-ophthalmic adverse events, except for ptosis and Guillain-Barr syndrome/Miller Fisher syndrome, showed no significant increase after COVID-19, and their incidence rates were extremely low. The incidence rates of ptosis in the early and late phases were significantly higher in patients who received the COVID-19 vaccination (HR = 1.65 in the early phase and 2.02 in the late phase) compared with the control group. The BNT162b2 (PfizerBioNTech) vaccine was associated with a lower ptosis risk than the ChAdOx1 vaccine. Guillain-Barr syndrome/Miller Fisher syndrome occurred significantly more often during the early phase (HR = 5.97) in patients with COVID-19 infection than in the control group.
The authors concluded, Ptosis was associated with the COVID-19 vaccination, particularly with the ChAdOx1 vaccine, while Guillain-Barr syndrome/Miller Fisher syndrome was associated with the COVID-19 infection. In contrast, no association was found between other neuro-ophthalmic adverse events and COVID-19 infection or vaccination. These results may provide helpful insights for diagnosing and treating neuro-ophthalmologic adverse events after COVID-19.
As the holiday season gets into full swing, public health officials are advising the public to stay up-to-date on their vaccinations for COVID-19, flu and RSV and to stay home if unwell, among other recommendations.
Regional wastewater data shows that infection rates are currently high, a trend that could continue in the coming weeks as more people gather indoors for the holidays. Public health officers across the Bay Area, including Alameda and Contra Costa counties, also issued a joint reminder for staying safe this holiday season earlier this week.
Data from Stanford University's WastewaterSCAN dashboard shows high to medium levels of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and norovirus, a gastrointestinal virus, across five out of six local sewersheds.
Influenza A, another common fall and winter virus, is also in high concentrations in some sewersheds, whose sewage is tested at regional wastewater treatment plants.
RSV is a highly infectious respiratory illness that is particularly concerning for infants, small children and the elderly, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
On the Peninsula, evidence of RSV has been high in the past 21 days at the Silicon Valley Clean Water plant in Redwood City, Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant, City of Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant, San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility and the South County Regional Wastewater Authority in Gilroy.
RSV concentrations are low in samplings taken from Stanford.
Levels of influenza A, a variant of the flu virus, have been high in the Palo Alto, Sunnyvale and San Jose sewersheds in the last 21 days. Influenza A is at low concentrations in the Redwood City and Gilroy sewersheds, and at Stanford.
Emergency room visits related to influenza-like illnesses have increased 1.5% according to Santa Clara County Public Health influenza and RSV data dashboards.
The COVID-19 virus, SARS-CoV-2, is also still very much active throughout the county, with some serious cases. Hospital admissions show a seven-day average of 12 new admissions per day through Nov. 10, the latest data available. Twelve patients were admitted to the ICU, according to county data.
Dr. Jamila Champsi, chief of infectious diseases at Kaiser Permanente South San Francisco, said Kaiser Permanente Northern California is seeing increased cases of Influenza A and RSV.
"We are seeing cases of RSV in children under the age of 18, and influenza cases in those over the age of 50. We are not seeing an increase in hospital admissions or ICU admissions due to either illness. It is very likely we will see an increase in influenza, RSV, COVID-19, and other respiratory viruses due to travel and people gathering over the holidays," she said.
Kaiser continues to recommend that people receive their COVID-19 vaccination and get a flu shot to protect themselves and others.
"COVID-19 and flu vaccines are available by walk-in at our clinics. We encourage our members to get their updated vaccinations through Kaiser Permanente. Visit kp.org for more information about clinic locations and hours. In addition, there is a RSV vaccine available for high-risk individuals including infants, pregnant women, and adults over the age of 60," she said.
Wastewater concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 are high in the San Jose sewershed. They are at medium concentrations in Palo Alto and Stanford sewersheds, and are at low concentrations in Redwood City, Sunnyvale and Gilroy.
The rise in COVID-19 cases combined with influenza and RSV -- a so-called "trifecta" of expected seasonal respiratory illness -- prompted the Santa Clara County Public Health Department to require masking in all patient care areas in health care facilities such as hospitals, clinics and at assisted living, skilled nursing and memory care centers from Nov. 1 through March 31..
"The seasonal increase in circulation of multiple respiratory viruses causes a particular risk to populations more likely to experience severe disease and death if infected, including infants, older adults, and people with impaired immune systems," the public health department said in a statement.
"The seasonal surges also risk overwhelming the existing health care system in the county, jeopardizing the capacity to provide care for these and other diseases."
Dr. Kismet Baldwin-Santana, health officer of San Mateo County Health, added in a Nov. 30 press release: "Staying up to date with vaccinations for COVID-19, flu and RSV is the most effective tool for protection. Stay home if unwell, consider testing before gatherings and seek prompt treatment if needed."
Gastrointestinal norovirus rates are high
Respiratory illnesses aren't the only diseases plaguing local residents. Norovirus, which is highly contagious and can cause severe vomiting and diarrhea, is currently trending high in the Palo Alto, and Redwood City sewersheds. Norovirus is at medium concentrations in the San Jose, Sunnyvale and Gilroy sewersheds and at low concentrations in the Stanford samplings, according to the Wastewater SCAN data.
The virus is particularly dangerous for the elderly and can spread quickly in congregate-housing settings such as assisted-living and nursing homes. A person with norovirus can also still be contagious for up to two weeks after feeling better, increasing the likelihood of contamination to many people. The virus is spread through contact with contaminated surfaces and food, according to the CDC.
Advice from public health leaders
In a Nov. 30 statement, health officers from 12 Bay Area counties and the city of Berkeley released recommendations to help people stay healthy during the holidays:
Get vaccinated against COVID-19, flu and RSV
These viruses pose the greatest risk to infants, older adults, and persons with certain health conditions. Getting recommended vaccines when pregnant protects pregnant people and their babies.
One dose of this year's updated COVID-19 vaccine is recommended for everyone ages six months and older, at least two months after their last dose. Children six months to 4 years old and immunocompromised persons who have never been vaccinated should get additional doses.
People without insurance or whose insurance doesn't cover the cost of vaccines can get the updated COVID-19 vaccine for free through the Bridge Access Program. Visit vaccines.gov to find a location.
Everyone six months and older should get anannual flu vaccine.Children 8 years old and younger need two doses the first year they get the flu vaccine.
Adults 60 years and older can get vaccinated against RSV to prevent severe illness. Pregnant people should also get the RSV vaccine at 32 to 36 weeks of pregnancy to protect their newborn. RSV vaccines are available at many pharmacies and healthcare providers.
Sick? Stay home
Stay home as much as possible until you have recovered, no matter which virus you have.
People who need urgent or emergency medical care, including testing or treatment, should not hesitate to seek it.
Test if feeling ill
Test right away. Symptoms of COVID-19 may be mild.
Stock up on home-test kits. This fall, every household can get up to eight free COVID-19 tests from the U.S. government through covid.gov/tests.
Get treatment
Medication for COVID-19 helps prevent hospitalization and is available to most adults and some teens with even mild symptoms.
COVID-19 treatment works best when started right after symptoms begin, and within five days of symptom onset. Talk to a healthcare provider about treatment options or visit covid19.ca.gov/treatment.
Antiviral treatment is available for those who test positive for flu who are at high risk for severe illness.
Wear a mask, improve ventilation
Consider masking in indoor public places, especially if at higher risk for severe disease (over 65 years of age and/or persons with certain health conditions).
Wear a well-fitting, high-quality mask such as a KF94, KN95 or N95.
Improve ventilation indoors by turning on HVAC systems, filtering the air with a portable HEPA filter -- the same kind that many use for wildfire smoke. Point fans out open windows, or open doors and windows when possible.
From Philly and the Pa. suburbs to South Jersey and Delaware, what would you like WHYY News to cover? Let us know!
COVID-19 cases have been on the rise for the last three weeks according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Now that Thanksgiving is over, Dr. Ed Lifshitz, medical director of communicable disease service for the New Jersey Health Department, expects the trend to continue.
The past few years following the Thanksgiving holidays we have seen an increase in cases as people do congregate together, he said.
Epidemiologist Dr. Stanley H. Weiss, a professor at the Rutgers New Jersey Medical School and a professor of biostatistics and epidemiology at the Rutgers School of Public Health, said its hard to predict exactly how respiratory diseases will increase from year to year.
There is always, though, an increase as were bearing into these winter months, so with some certainty I can tell you yes, we can expect COVID is going to increase, he said.
Dr. Lifshitz said an increase in COVID-19 cases will result in a higher number of COVID-19-related deaths, and a similar uptick in flu-related deaths is also expected to happen this time of year.
He noted that while the public health emergency phase of the pandemic is over, the total number of COVID-related deaths is still much higher than the number of flu-related deaths, but its difficult to get exact figures because COVID-related mortality is tracked much more carefully.
It is what is known as reportable, meaning every case of COVID that a doctor or a lab discovers has to get reported to public health authorities, and the same is not true for influenza, he said.
When it comes to determining death caused by the flu, Dr. Lifshitz said that those numbers are estimates based on larger studies.
He said the CDC estimates between 12,000 and 52,000 Americans a year die from flu-related illness, and New Jersey has approximately 3% of the national population. So just based upon that calculation I would estimate that about 360 to 1,680 people die of the flu every year in New Jersey, and again thats just a rough estimate.
He added that last year New Jersey had a fairly normal flu season, which suggests that about a thousand or so New Jerseyans likely died from the flu in 2022.
He said for all of last year the CDC reported 6,461 COVID-related deaths in New Jersey, so no matter how you look at it we continue to see about five times the number of people dying in New Jersey from COVID as from flu.
image:
Top: A person is infected by the Alpha variant of SARS-CoV-2. Within a few weeks, antibodies are made that protect the person against the Alpha variant as well as Beta and Gamma variants which are very similar to the Alpha variant. Bottom: A person who (1) has recovered from COVID-19 and who (2) has received mRNA vaccine with components of the Alpha variant develops a strong immune response within a few weeks. The antibodies that are made in the body protect against the Alpha variant, the closely related Beta and Gamma variants as well as the more distantly related Delta and Omicron variants. People who have recovered from COVID-19 and then received the mRNA vaccine are also protected against new variants of SARS-CoV-2. Ill: Gerda Kaynova
Credit: Gerd Kaynova
Vaccines help boost the production of antibodies, providing effective protection against serious illness and death, says Mona Hyster Fenstad.
Fenstad is a senior consultant at the blood bank at St. Olavs Hospital in Trondheim.
We are already well into autumn, and the COVID-19 virus is rife all over Norway. The Norwegian Institute of Public Health recommends people in risk groups to get vaccinated.
They point out that elderly people in particular will be vulnerable to serious illness if they are infected with COVID-19. However, since the vast majority of us have already had COVID-19 at least once, do we really need to think about getting vaccinated?
Yes, say the scientists.
The saying what doesnt kill you makes you stronger is not true in this context. The inflammation that occurs in the body during infections such as influenza, COVID-19 and pneumonia can be harmful. Especially for people with heart or lung disease, or where other risk factors are involved, says Fenstad.
Fenstand and her international colleagues have recently published a study that looked at the effect of vaccination on people who became ill with COVID-19 before vaccines were available. This work has been closely linked to the search for antibodies that can be used as medicine against COVID-19.
At the beginning of 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) asked scientists and therapists around the world to look for treatments for COVID-19. Among the treatments proposed was convalescent plasma therapy, which uses plasma from blood donors who have recovered from the illness. Along with colleagues from NTNU (the Norwegian University of Science and Technology), we chose to take a closer look at how the antibodies in this plasma were able to neutralize new virus variants that emerged, says Fenstad.
While big pharmaceutical companies were working hard to develop vaccines and medicines, scientists had already begun to look at the use of blood plasma from COVID-19 patients as a possible treatment.
Many of these patients had large amounts of antibodies in their blood. Plasma containing these antibodies was therefore given to seriously ill patients to help them fight the virus. It turned out that convalescent plasma therapy was primarily effective in patients who had immunodeficiencies, says Fenstad.
We were looking for so-called super-neutralizers, people who develop specific antibodies that effectively neutralize different variants of SARS-CoV-2, says Denis Kainov, a professor in NTNUs Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine who was part of the research team.
These antibodies were eventually cultivated and cloned, and then turned into medicines used to fight COVID-19.
In Norway, the first COVID-19 outbreak occurred in February 2020. The first Alpha variant was quickly followed by new, mutated variants named Beta and Delta. Omicron, which is currently the prevailing variant, was first reported in late 2021.
By April 2020, blood banks across Norway had begun collecting blood plasma from patients who had recovered from COVID-19. At St. Olavs Hospital, 72 patients were selected for a more detailed study of the antibodies in their blood plasma.
It turned out that half of these patients had serum containing antibodies that effectively neutralized the Beta variant, says Kainov.
Kainov has been searching for active substances to use in the treatment of COVID-19 and other viral diseases.
He is now looking for antibodies that could provide wider protection, including against new COVID-19 variants that might emerge.
They noticed that four patients had antibodies that effectively neutralized the COVID-19 variant that was dominant in Trondheim at the time.
We followed up by taking new samples from these patients and found that their antibodies also neutralized other COVID-19 variants. In fact, they were also effective on new virus variants, says Kainov.
The conclusion is thus that it is a good idea to get vaccinated even if you have already had COVID-19 and even if the virus has mutated since the vaccine was made.
Out of the four patients, the scientists picked the one whose antibodies had been least effective against the Omicron variant. This patient had received their first vaccine dose four months after recovering from COVID-19. The efficacy of the vaccine was striking.
The vaccine boosted the production of immune cells and antibodies against all tested variants of the virus, including Omicron, says Kainov.
Kainovs colleagues in Estonia could then proceed with blood plasma from the patient, cloning and cultivating antibodies that neutralised COVID-19 viruses on a wide scale.
The results have also provided the scientists with useful knowledge about the effect of the vaccine on convalescents.
When it comes to vaccines, it is always a race. The virus is always one step ahead, and the vaccines and medicines will never be completely up to date, Fenstad said
Our study is an in-depth study of just one patient, and it constitutes only a tiny piece of research in this field. However, large studies in other countries confirm our findings. Vaccines boost the production of antibodies that are also effective against new variants of the virus, she said.
The finding demonstrate that it is a good idea to get vaccinated even if you have already had COVID-19 and even if the virus has mutated since the vaccine was made. It may not prevent you from being reinfected, but it will provide protection against serious illness and death.
When you get sick with COVID-19, you develop antibodies, but the effects of these diminish and are gone after six to nine months. This is why people can get infected again and again by new variants of SARS-CoV-2. The virus mutates to avoid the immune response we have developed through previous infections or vaccines, says Kainov.
That is why vaccination is important now that we are heading towards winter.
The studies we have conducted here on COVID-19 patients are extremely important, because there will be new outbreaks of the virus. Almost seven million people have died from COVID-19. We must avoid getting into the same situation again, says Kainov.
Reference: Mona Hyster Fenstad et al.:Boosted production of antibodies that neutralized different SARS-CoV-2 variants in a COVID-19 convalescent following messenger RNA vaccination a case study.International Journal of Infectious Diseases. Volum 137, December 2023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2023.10.011
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
Experimental study
People
Boosted production of antibodies that neutralized different SARS-CoV-2 variants in a COVID-19 convalescent following messenger RNA vaccination - a case study
1-Nov-2023
State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada
Zip Code
Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe
CLAIM
Published studies show that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines cause metabolic cardiomyopathy and sudden cardiac death
DETAILS
Misrepresents source: None of the three studies found that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines increase the risk of sudden death or metabolic cardiomyopathy, as McCullough claimed. One study of autopsies of vaccinated people clarified that none of the deaths were caused by the vaccine; another study was performed in people who showed no symptoms of heart problems and didnt report any deaths, while the other study used very high doses of vaccine that arent comparable to doses used in vaccination.
KEY TAKE AWAY
Studies so far havent shown any association between COVID-19 vaccines and mortality risk or sudden death. All medical interventions come with side effects and COVID-19 vaccines are no exception. COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are linked to an increased risk of heart inflammation in adolescent and young adult males. However, the risk of heart complications and other health problems associated with COVID-19 is well-documented to be higher than that associated with vaccination. On balance, COVID-19 vaccines offer more benefits than drawbacks.
During the interview, McCullough claimed that three studiesone from Krauson et al., another from Nakahara et al., and the other from Schreckenberg et al.were evidence that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines caused a form of metabolic cardiomyopathy that could explain sudden cardiac death[1-3].
In fact, McCullough has repeatedly drawn on these studies to build the case that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are dangerous and linked to deaths, as evidenced by these tweets. We explain in this review how his claims distort and misrepresent the findings of these studies in a bid to push the false narrative that COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous.
McCullough interpreted the study by Krauson et al. as showing that messenger RNA is directly in the human heart and that this has been identified with inflammation around it. While both statements on their own are true, they leave out important details that contradict McCulloughs wider claim of harm from the vaccine mRNA.
Krauson and colleagues collected tissue from the lymph nodes, liver, spleen and heart muscle during autopsies of patients who had also been recently vaccinated with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines[1]. The aim was to assess how long mRNA from the vaccines could persist in different parts of the body.
Twenty patients who were vaccinated and five who were unvaccinated were included (as a control). The authors clarified that In none of the vaccinated patients was the cause of death linked to the vaccine.
The authors reported that they didnt detect vaccine mRNA in the spleen and liver. But in the case of heart tissue, vaccine mRNA could be detected in three of the 20 vaccinated patients. All three had been vaccinated within 30 days of their death.
The authors wanted to understand what set these three patients apart from the other vaccinated patients who had also been vaccinated within 30 days of death but showed no vaccine mRNA in the heart.
We reached out to the studys corresponding author, James Stone, an associate professor of pathology at Harvard Medical School, to better understand the studys findings.
Stone explained that while they did observe inflammation in the heart of these three patients, it was not the right type of inflammation for myocarditis. He also clarified that The vaccine was associated with the presence of healing myocardial injury that was present at the time of vaccination and that in at least one of the three patients, the injury had clearly occurred before vaccination. Simply put, these results indicate that the heart injury occurred before vaccination and wasnt caused by the vaccine.
Moreover, the study contains an analysis of the likely cause of death in these three patients. One had an intracranial bleed and lung cancer; one had a history of heart failure and died from non-ischemic cardiomyopathy; and the third died from severe coronary artery disease. Thus, all three patients had medical conditions that could result in heart injury.
The study did find that vaccine mRNA tended to be located around areas of heart injury, but given that the heart injury was already present at the time of vaccination, the authors hypothesized that vaccine mRNA had been carried to these areas by immune cells reacting to the heart injury as a result of inflammation.
Stone emphasized that none of these deaths were found to be caused by the vaccine.
To summarize, the study by Krauson et al. detected vaccine mRNA in the heart tissue of three of 20 vaccinated patients. Vaccine mRNA was detected specifically in areas of the heart that were injured, but the studys findings indicated that the injury had occurred before vaccination and that all three had pre-existing medical conditions that could explain the injury. None of the deaths were linked to the vaccines.
Therefore, the study doesnt support McCulloughs claim that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines damage the heart and cause sudden cardiac death. In fact, the studys findings speak against his claim.
McCullough asserted that the study by Nakahara et al. showed the cardiac muscle changes its preference from free fatty acids to glucose, calling it a very disturbing study. But a closer look at the studys findings places this interpretation into question.
This was a retrospective study, published in the journal Radiology, that took advantage of a large database of existing PET/CT scans to see if people who received the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines but didnt develop myocarditis also showed changes in the heart[2]. The scans were performed on a mix of patients, such as cancer patients and people undergoing a medical checkup.
The PET/CT scans used by the researchers relied on the radioactive marker called fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose, or 18F-FDG for short. It is a glucose analog used to visualize tissues that rely on glucose as an energy source or whose dependence on glucose increases due to disease. As such, it is used for cancer imaging, as well as imaging of the heart and brain. It can also be used to detect inflammation in the heart.
Because this method of imaging is sensitive to the way our body metabolizes glucose, certain preparations need to be made beforehand to ensure accurate results. An editorial in the journal, commenting on the study by Nakahara et al., explained that 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 myocardiumalmost all patients have high myocardial uptake. We can contrast this with McCulloughs claim implying that heart tissue using glucose is abnormal.
Heart cells can use alternative sources of energy, such as lipids, when a person is in a fasting state. The editorial went into more detail: In the fasting state, the preferred myocardial energy source is lipids rather than glucose. The trick is to combine a low carbohydrate and high fat diet the day before the FDG PET scan with 12 hours of fasting immediately before imaging.
This was indeed the approach taken with the 18F-FDG PET/CT scans analyzed by Nakahara et al. Using this method, they found that vaccinated people who showed no signs of myocarditis had a greater uptake of 18F-FDG in the heart than people who werent vaccinated. This increase could be seen regardless of the patients age, sex, and the vaccine brand received.
Thus, the editorial explained, the findings suggest that mild levels of heart inflammation may be more common than we ever expected in people who received a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, and that the minority of vaccinated people who developed myocarditis simply experienced more severe inflammation than the majority that didnt develop myocarditis.
The authors did acknowledge some limitations, such as the fact that this was a retrospective study from a single hospital, and so may not apply to the general population.
The editorial also pointed to a few others, such as the fact that the study had no information on the level of myocardial enzyme (a measure of heart injury) or cardiac function in the patients, and that the authors did not scrutinize the oncologic histories and treatments of their patient groups.
Theres no indication in the study that the findings were disturbing, as McCullough put it. Contrary to his claim, the study didnt show that heart tissue had changed its preference from free fatty acids to glucose. It also didnt report metabolic cardiomyopathy or sudden cardiac death in vaccinated people.
McCullough claimed that the study by Schreckenberg et al. showed both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, when directly applied on the heart muscle cells, caused [] the heart muscle cells to [contract] in abnormal ways[3]. Again, while in itself true, this statement leaves out the fact that the researchers found this effect only with vaccine doses that were much higher than are given to people.
The aim of this study was to understand how the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could potentially affect the heart. To do this, they grew heart muscle cells isolated from rats in cell cultures (cells growing in dishes) and added the vaccines directly into the cell cultures.
No changes were seen in the first 24 hours after adding the vaccines, but 48 hours after the vaccines were added, the researchers found that the way the heart muscle cells contracted changed. It should be noted that the amount of vaccine used in this experiment was much higher than what adults receive during vaccination. The two doses tested were one and 3.3 micrograms, added to one milliliter of culture medium (a liquid containing nutrients and other chemicals needed to maintain cell cultures). A microgram is a millionth of a gram.
In contrast, an adult dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is 30 micrograms and 50 micrograms for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. The volume of the average human is about 65 liters; the average human adult has about four to five liters of circulating blood. While we know the vaccine isnt distributed evenly throughout the body, remaining mainly at the site of injection, this is still a far cry from the the experimental conditions in the study.
Marc Veldoen, an immunologist and professor at the University of Lisbon, wrote a thread on X (formerly Twitter) on the study, explaining that This would be like directly injecting in the heart, or a very large quantity of vaccine in the bloodstream to soak the heart with Spike-coding RNA, neither of which occurs during vaccination.
Pediatric cardiologist Frank Han also wrote about the study in a thread on X/Twitter. He wrote that the study was an important project for better understanding vaccine-related myocarditis. But he also pointed out that the researchers had to soak the heart cells in vaccine, to get the effects they found in this experiment. None of us humans are getting the vaccine this way.
All medical interventions come with side effects and COVID-19 vaccines are no exception. COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are linked to an increased risk of heart inflammation in adolescent and young adult males, although most recover without any long-term effects.
However, the risk of heart complications, along with other health problems like blood clotting disorders, associated with getting COVID-19 is well-documented to be higher than that associated with vaccination[4-11]. Therefore, on balance, COVID-19 vaccines offer more benefits than drawbacks.
The scientific evidence thus far doesnt support the claim that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines lead to a greater risk of sudden death or sudden cardiac death. A study performed in Australia found no association between out-of-hospital cardiac arrests and COVID-19 vaccination[12].
A study published in the journal Circulation, which tracked the trends in sudden cardiac deaths in U.S. college athletes over a 20-year period, actually reported a net decrease in sudden cardiac death[13]. Of the 143 cases of sudden cardiac death during the 20 years up to 30 June 2022, just eight were attributable to myocarditis, and only one case occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Published studies so far have also found no association between COVID-19 vaccination and a greater risk of all-cause mortality[14,15].
The claim that these three studies point to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines causing metabolic cardiomyopathy and sudden cardiac death is baseless. As we explained above, McCulloughs statements about the studies misrepresent their findings or leave out important information that contradicts his claim. In fact, none of the studies found any association between COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and sudden cardiac death or metabolic cardiomyopathy. Other published studies have also found no association between COVID-19 vaccination and sudden death or an increase in all-cause mortality.
Specialty
Please choose I'm not a medical professional. Allergy and Immunology Anatomy Anesthesiology Cardiac/Thoracic/Vascular Surgery Cardiology Critical Care Dentistry Dermatology Diabetes and Endocrinology Emergency Medicine Epidemiology and Public Health Family Medicine Forensic Medicine Gastroenterology General Practice Genetics Geriatrics Health Policy Hematology HIV/AIDS Hospital-based Medicine I'm not a medical professional. Infectious Disease Integrative/Complementary Medicine Internal Medicine Internal Medicine-Pediatrics Medical Education and Simulation Medical Physics Medical Student Nephrology Neurological Surgery Neurology Nuclear Medicine Nutrition Obstetrics and Gynecology Occupational Health Oncology Ophthalmology Optometry Oral Medicine Orthopaedics Osteopathic Medicine Otolaryngology Pain Management Palliative Care Pathology Pediatrics Pediatric Surgery Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Plastic Surgery Podiatry Preventive Medicine Psychiatry Psychology Pulmonology Radiation Oncology Radiology Rheumatology Substance Use and Addiction Surgery Therapeutics Trauma Urology Miscellaneous
Opinion
If the former health secretary wants to avoid being the fall guy for Britains pandemic failures, he should stop the constant overclaiming
Thu 30 Nov 2023 13.30 EST
Few public figures have emerged from the Covid-19 inquirys autumn hearings with more damage to their reputations than Matt Hancock. Admittedly, Mr Hancocks public standing was not high at the outset. But he has been one of the prime targets in the Whitehall blame game that has played out in the inquiry since October. Only Boris Johnson, who will give evidence himself next week, has taken worse hits to his public standing, as politicians, advisers and civil servants jockey to explain how Britain proved so unprepared for a pandemic that has killed more than 230,000 UK residents since the start of 2020.
Thursday was Mr Hancocks chance to strike back. He certainly made a go of it. His nuclear levels of self-confidence, to which the Cabinet Office civil servant Helen MacNamara had drawn attention in her testimony, and which reached their zenith in his reported wish to decide which NHS patients should live and which should die, were prominent in all his answers. No question seemed to puncture his belief, which was aggressively argued in exchanges with the inquiry counsel Hugo Keith, that his own actions were consistently timely, wise and tough, and that any fault lay wholly elsewhere, and mainly in 10 Downing Street.
There are two fatal problems with this approach. The first is that Mr Hancocks self-belief makes him overclaim. He puts a uniformly positive gloss on everything, leaving himself no room to retreat or compromise with dignity. He deserved credit for supporting lockdown and opposing herd immunity strategies. He was a critic of Eat out to help out. But his infamous claim to be putting a ring around care homes will haunt his reputation forever. His arbitrary promise of 100,000 tests a day left him with a target only achievable by creative counting. His claim, repeated on Thursday, that Britain was better prepared for Covid than other comparable countries is manifestly untrue. His insistence, again repeated, that Britain had a pre-pandemic plan is misleading, since it was not the right one to deal with Covid.
The second problem is that Mr Hancocks accounts are directly contradicted by too many others. The former Downing Street chief adviser Dominic Cummings, with whom Mr Hancock has a reciprocal loathing, tweeted that the former health secretary was lying to the inquiry when he claimed to have advised the prime minister to impose an immediate lockdown two weeks before it happened. With his contempt towards all elected politicians from the prime minister down, Mr Cummings is certainly no paragon. Mr Hancocks accusation that he encouraged a culture of fear in Downing Street is hard to dispute. But Mr Cummingss charges that MrHancock made claims without evidence, and that they subsequently proved to be false, have often been backed up by other civil servants and politicians.
In one important respect, however, what MrHancock told the inquiry was correct. In the end, the principal purpose of the inquiry is not to decide which minister or adviser was individually most to blame for the UKs failings in the face of Covid. Yes, that matters. And, yes, Britain was peculiarly hindered by the fact that Covid struck when a dithering Mr Johnson and his second-rate team were in government. Nevertheless, the more important task ultimately is to learn lessons. It is to put structures, approaches and resources in place so that the same lamentable errors, and the same egregious untruths that ministers told about them, are not repeated when the inevitable next pandemic arrives.
{{topLeft}}
{{bottomLeft}}
{{topRight}}
{{bottomRight}}
{{.}}
One-timeMonthlyAnnual
Other
Key Takeaways
People living with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and interstitial lung disease (ILD) may have a weaker response to the COVID-19 vaccine than people with healthy lungs, making them more susceptible to COVID-19 than their vaccinated counterparts without lung disease, according to a new study.
According to lead author R. Lee Reinhardt, PhD, an associate professor in the Department of Immunology and Genomic Medicine at National Jewish Health, there are a few reasons why.
Chronic lung illness causes lung inflammation that may prevent the immune system from fully responding to the COVID vaccine, Reinhardt told Verywell.
Treatment for chronic lung diseases can also muddy vaccine response. Many patients take medications that suppress inflammation in the lungs, such as steroids and biologics.
These medications can dampen the immune systems reaction to vaccines, leaving the individual less fully protected than a healthy person, Reinhardt said.
If youre living with a lung disease like asthma or COPD, heres what experts want you to know about getting a COVID vaccine and the best way to deal with illness this winter.
For the study, the researchers looked at blood samples taken from 32 patients with either asthma, COPD, or ILD who had gotten a COVID vaccine. They checked the patients COVID antibody levels and compared them to the levels of 31 vaccinated people who did not have lung disease.
Three to four months after getting a COVID vaccine, about half of the participants with lung disease had lower COVID antibody levels than the people with healthy lungs. The researchers concluded that lower antibody levels meant that the patients with lung disease had a weaker response to the vaccine and may not have had as much protection as vaccinated people with healthy lungs.
Reinhardt emphasized that the study findings do not mean that people with chronic lung disease should avoid getting a COVID vaccinehaving slightly less protection is still better than having none.
The [COVID] vaccine is highly effective at controlling COVID-19 and preventing severe disease. Reinhardt said, adding that both the immune (T) cell and antibody responses are sufficient to protect the public.
Since they may not mount as strong an immune response, patients with chronic lung conditions may need an additional dose of a COVID vaccine as their immunity starts to wear off to ensure they stay protected.
Patients with underlying lung disease may have the same level of immunity at three months as healthy people have at six to eight months, so they may need two doses a year instead of one seasonal dose, Reinhart said.
There are no official guidelines on vaccinating people with chronic lung disease against COVID, so people with asthma, COPD, and ILD should talk to their healthcare providers to figure out the best plan.
Reinhardts team wants to find out if their studys findings on COVID vaccines might apply to other vaccine-preventable respiratory illnesses, like the flu, pneumonia, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).
Having more data to help providers make decisions about vaccinating at-risk patients is important, as previous studies looking at immune responses to flu vaccines among people with chronic lung disease have been mixed.
For example, a 2021 study found that asthma patients who controlled their condition with treatments like immunotherapy and steroids had similar immune responses to flu vaccines as those who didnt have asthma. However, older studies have suggested that people with asthma may mount a weaker response to flu vaccines.
A 2022 study found that the response to flu shots was similar between people with COPD and people who didnt have COPD. But the researchers added that personalizing flu shots based on immune responses would make them even more effective for high-risk people. And like with the asthma studies, other studies on COPD have suggested that people with the condition may not mount a strong response to flu shots.
Even though people with lung disease are at high risk for respiratory illnesses, theres still a lot that providers dont know when it comes to the best way to protect them. More studies are needed to understand how people with chronic lung diseases immune responses to vaccines stack up against those of people with healthy lungs, as well as establish guidelines to make sure they get the most protection from vaccines.
Anyone who is immunocompromised or concerned about reducing their risk of contracting respiratory illness during periods of community surges is encouraged to wear a mask when out in public, Tammy Lundstrom, MD, JD, Senior Vice President and Chief Medical Officer at Trinity Health in Livonia, Michigan, told Verywell.
If prolonged mask-wearing is difficult, a person should avoid crowded indoor spaces when RSV, influenza, or COVID are surging in their locale, said Lundstrom.
High-risk groups, including older adults, immunocompromised people, and people with chronic lung conditions, should see their provider right away if they do get sick. Antiviral medications like Paxlovid can reduce the risk of COVID complications for high-risk people. Lagevrio may be a good alternative if youre taking a medication that interacts with Paxlovid.
Anyone who qualifies for the use of COVID outpatient treatments should seek care as soon as possible after diagnosis to maximize effect since the medications need to be given within five days of the onset of symptoms, Lundstrom said.
If you have chronic lung disease, you may have a weaker immune response to a COVID vaccine. However, having slightly less protection is better than having no protection, so experts say its still important to get vaccines against respiratory viruses like COVID and the flu. You can also continue to take other precautions, like wearing a mask, to guard yourself against getting sick this winter.
The information in this article is current as of the date listed, which means newer information may be available when you read this. For the most recent updates on COVID-19, visit ourcoronavirus news page.
The Covid-19 pandemic landed a substantial blow to life expectancy in the U.S., and while life expectancy has been slowly increasing once again, it is yet to return to pre-pandemic levels. According to provisional data by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), life expectancy increased by 1.1 years to 77.5 in 2022 compared to 76.4 in 2021. "The good news is that life expectancy increased for the first time in two years," Elizabeth Arias, co-author of the paper, told NPR. "The not-so-good news is that the increase in life expectancy only accounted for less than 50% of the loss that was experienced between 2019 and 2021."
While Covid deaths have gone down, it is still the top cause of death in the U.S. "Holding everything else constant, we'd need to see another large decline in Covid mortality for life expectancy to increase," Arias told CNN. Along with fewer Covid deaths, there were also fewer deaths caused by cancer, heart disease, homicide and unintentional injuries, including drug overdoses. On the flip side, life expectancy would have been higher "had there not been a rise in deaths from pneumonia and the flu, malnutrition, kidney disease, birth defects and perinatal deaths," NBC News reported. Life expectancy varied between races with American Indians and Alaska Natives having the largest increases but still having the shortest expectancies.
While not listed in the top ten causes of death, the number of suicide deaths rose to its highest rate since 1941 with "increases pretty much across the board," Sally Curtin, who co-authored a separate report the CDC also released Wednesday, told PBS. Almost 50,000 lives were lost to suicide in 2022, with men four times more likely than women to die by suicide. However, the suicide rate increased twice as much for women in 2022, especially among white women and those between 25 and 34. The good news is that the suicide rate decreased among youth.
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
