What Does the Swiss Study on Covid Vaccines and Myocarditis Really Say?
Interestingly, Switzerland stopped recommending covid vaccines, even for high risk individuals, this past April.
Given the disgraceful misinformation campaign by government bureaucrats, politically-connected “experts,” and the media related to covid policies and the vaccine rollout, Americans are extremely mistrustful of the latest narratives related to both issues.
This week, there has been a great deal of attention being given to a study done in Basel, Switzerland, that was pre-printed last year and officially published this month. It indicates that the rate of subclinical myocarditis (heart inflammation without symptoms) after the COVID vaccine is much higher than originally thought. I think it’s worthwhile looking under the hood of this paper for a few moments.
I would like to focus on the research methods and conclusions:
Hospital employees scheduled to undergo mRNA-1273 booster vaccination were assessed for mRNA-1273 vaccination-associated myocardial injury, defined as acute dynamic increase in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) concentration above the sex-specific upper-limit of normal on day 3 (48-96h) after vaccination without evidence of an alternative cause. [Summary: The researchers are going to look at cardiac enzymes 3 days after a booster shot. Elevated levels would be suggestive of a mild case of myocarditis, inflammation of the heart muscle].
To explore possible mechanisms, antibodies against IL-1RA, the SARS-CoV2-Nucleoprotein(NP) and -Spike(S1) proteins and an array of 14 inflammatory cytokines were quantified. [Summary: The researchers are to look to see if there is evidence of other infections, which could impact the heart muscle, to eliminate them as a possible explanation for any myocarditis observed.]
Among 777 participants, median age 37 years, 69.5% women, 40 participants(5.1% [95%CI, 3.7-7.0%]) had elevated hs-cTnT concentration on day 3 and mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated myocardial injury was adjudicated in 22 participants (2.8% [95%CI, 1.7-4.3%]). [Summary: Between 3.7-7.0% had elevated enzymes on day 4, and 2.8% of the participants had ” mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated myocardial injury.]
Twenty cases occurred in women (3.7% [95%CI, 2.3-5.7%]), two in men (0.8% [95%CI, 0.1-3.0%]). Hs-cTnT-elevations were mild and only temporary. No patient had ECG-changes, and none developed major adverse cardiac events within 30 days (0% [95%CI, 0-0.4%]). [Summary: They took a look at the 22 patients with what was defined as ” mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated myocardial injury was adjudicated”, but no serious health effect related to the heart was reported within 30 days.]
Shortly after the pre-print of the paper was published, and an initial spate of comments related to the data made the rounds on social media, one of the “fact-check” sites offered this assessment:
First, the research didn’t include a control group that didn’t receive the booster shot. It also didn’t include a measurement of the baseline level of troponin in the blood before the vaccination. Therefore, we don’t know whether troponin levels were already elevated in some people before vaccination.
Second, the data we do have show that the risk of myocarditis is higher during COVID-19 than after vaccination. It’s unclear how much the findings of Müller et al. change our current understanding of these risks. As Müller explained in the Basel University interview, the study didn’t use the same method to investigate the incidence of myocarditis in COVID-19 patients. Therefore, there’s not enough information to compare COVID-19 patients with vaccinated people.
What these results essentially tell us is that using a more sensitive approach for detecting myocarditis leads researchers to detect more myocarditis cases, which is as expected. It is plausible that using the same approach in patients with COVID-19 would also increase the number of detected myocarditis cases and as a result lead researchers to report a much higher incidence of COVID-19-associated myocarditis.
It is important to take valid critiques seriously. With no baseline data, there is really no real way to gauge the magnitude of the elevation post-booster vaccination. And it may have been useful to get the troponin levels in a control group as well.
What this study does is provide some indications that there is an impact on the heart at a subclinical level in some people, and potentially at a rate far higher than the 1 out of 100,000 cases asserted by our Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in their study (hat-tip David Strom of Hot Air). More studies would be needed to get a better understanding of the magnitude of the enzyme increases and individual factors that may make people more susceptible to the effect.
However, the effect appears to be more substantial than the CDC revealed, and that is troubling, given the covid mandate and the millions who have received the vaccines, boosters, and then even more boosters. People need to be given all the potential effect information and allowed to decline the vaccine, given these findings and understanding of the mildness of the current versions covid. Personal choice must replace mandates.
But what is even more intriguing is what the Swiss decided to say about covid vaccines in April.
Switzerland will not recommend a COVID-19 vaccine for its citizens during the spring and summer seasons, even for those at high risk of experiencing severe illness from contracting the virus.
The country’s latest recommendation regarding COVID-19 vaccinations and booster shots came directly from the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH), which declared most people in the country had either already been vaccinated “and/or contracted and recovered from COVID-19” at this point.
“Their immune system has therefore been exposed to the coronavirus,” the FOPH insisted in its guidance, adding that “in spring/summer 2023, the virus will likely circulate less.”
According to the Swiss, it’s natural immunity for the win. That’s the data point that is more important, in my opinion.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It amazes me this is even a debate. I am not a social butterfly and don’t know that many people. Still, I know two people who collapsed and had seizures within a few minutes of their covid vaccine. I know two people who had their first stroke within a month of getting it. My tiny school had a healthy kid have a heart attack playing kickball. I now have 2-3 students a year that are diagnosed with some seizure disorder when I had only one in the precious decade. My school went from having a 98% teacher attendance rate down to around 80%.
I know it’s anecdotal. But, there has been a big change in the health around me. Once ya see it, then you can’t unsee it.
You sound very racist and transphobic.
Dang. I shame myself and my family.
“I know it’s anecdotal.”
———–
I have anecdotal evidence that 2 spaceships landed in my neighbor’s yard. But hey, it’s still evidence.
Life is lived anecdote. Gotta go with what ya have.
If two ships actually did land in the yard, that would be worth a hell of a lot more than any report from a government office, or any compromised Medical practitioner.
Right? If I personally witness two alien ships land, then I am going to view that observation as much more worthy than a government report about how aliens don’t really land in backyards and we don’t know what it was but we know for sure it wasn’t the thing you saw.
“Life is lived anecdote.”
It sure is. Futhermore, anecdote sells. Just look at the guy who sells Balance of Nature—tons of anecdotal evidence from anecdotal people who have anecdotal good health just from taking a couple pills.
Yep. Although, I admittedly don’t gice other people’s experiences and observations the same weight that I give my experiences and observations. Particularly if they are trying to sell.me something.
Let’s wait and see what Obama says. We know he speaks Swiss and Austrian, unlike most of the denizens of our 57 states. He also has a definition of nonplussed that is 100 percent opposite of its dictionary meaning, and thinks bemused is a synonym for amused. Just can’t beat these Harvard law grads.
I like to listen to him opine on “profit AND earnings ratios”.
Perhaps he can take the Intercontinental Railway over to Switzerland and get to the bottom of this himself.
Don’t forget he also created a new navy specialty, the corpse-man.
~70% women, median age 37 yrs? Haven’t read the paper but seems like they are doing the same thing the CDC did to minimize the myocarditis risk. CDC calculated risk for male, female all ages, when they knew the high risk population was males ~19-39(?).
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics
high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) concentration above the sex-specific upper-limit of normal
Uh oh … Houston, we have a problem. Not only does this white supremacist alleged study claim that there are sexes that can be determined biologically, but they also have the nerve to talk about “normal” and paint everyone outside of that narrow range as “abnormal”. This is a hateful paper that must be censored.
Let’s put that “1 out of 100,000” number in a percentage so we can compare directly:
1/100,000 = .001 %
To compare to <3%
Neither of those numbers is huge, but it goes from 0.001 to 3? that's 3 orders of magnitude difference, then triple it.
While the one critique posted is valid, that increase means someone should maybe be looking at the other studies and critiquing them?
And that is the value of the Swiss study.
…the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH), which declared most people in the country had either already been vaccinated “and/or contracted and recovered from COVID-19” at this point.”
This is likely why the study didn’t have a control group – too many people in Switzerland have been vaxxed, and vaxxing, even months earlier, might confound the study (because the earlier vaxxes may be responsible for the elevated markers). This is why the researchers, upon finding elevated markers among the study group, tested them to eliminate other causes for them. It may have been impossible to assemble the number of unvaxxed people to make a credible, statistically-significant control group.
The so-called vaccine was an IQ test, most people failed. I have no sympathy for those who didn’t have enough sense to see that rushed development followed by rushed testing will lead to shitty results. Don’t ask me to pay for your stupid.
Agreed. It baffled me as seemingly intelligent folks lined up to get a jab for product with very little public info for which any questions were immediately labeled misinformation. All to ward off a virus whose threat of severe health issues or death was overwhelmingly concentrated in the 65+, the morbidly obese or those with pre-existing immune problems.
They gave it out for free at school. Vice-principal dropped to the floor and seized and was hospitalized. Several of us saw it. Then, they got in line and got the same shot. Baffling.
More then just an IQ test- a moral test. I know well more then one person who didn’t think the shot would work (it didn’t) but in order to keep their job= or keep from getting harassed, dutifully lined up for the shot.
I didn’t think the shot was useless, I knew it. I suspected the harm to come, but didn’t know it until it happened. I lived with the harassment and threats. And have been unlawfully denied overtime by my federal government employee (the Veteran’s Health Administration) for all the times I was required to come in my own time to be swabbed to ensure I didn’t have a disease at that exact moment in time that I had no symptoms for.
The reckoning is going to have to come from those who submitted- there are more of them then us resisters. By far. I’ll be happy to join the mob once they gather their pitchforks. I’m not going to lead it. If more of them had said “No!” the nonsense would have stopped early on.
There’s a comic who recently did a video on this very thing- on his submission. https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1683864402397741057
An Israeli study also showed myocarditis and pericarditis from the vaccines but not from Covid-19.
Here’s how you can know they’re lying when they blame Covid for heart problems: Did they ascribe heart problems to the virus before the vaxxes? Because you can bet if there was an association, they would have pumped that ferociously. But that didn’t happen. We didn’t hear about heart problems until after the vaxxes were introduced, and at first, the problem was denied. Now that it can’t be denied, they’re retconning the “origin story” of the pandemic-associated heart problems.
Hey, remember when the initial testing for the vaccines themselves were compromised because the experimenters collapsed the control group on the allegation that covid was simply too dangerous to not give vaccines to the control? Good times.
Sometimes you have to go outside the box of “valid criticism” and look at it from the point of view of ‘consciousness of guilt’ — the pharma companies were full speed ahead in getting authorization to use the vaccine on children. Only then would their chemical concoctions be free from liability.
Of course one can argue they were doing this for the pure holiness of protecting children.
The only thing that I am certain is that medical science as I knew it died on or about March 15, 2020. We don’t need no steenkin control groups, to borrow a phrase.