#5: The "Heart" of COVID Vaccine Questions
Increased risk of vascular events, followed by declining protection from infection...
Hello All,
Though I’ve been on the COVID trail with these first few posts, I do intend to mix in other topics of interest. It’s just that I have a lot of stored up, keep me awake at night, blog-beginning COVID questions that I need to get off my chest first. So bear with me - I really would like to cover something more positive and uplifting!
Alas, there is work to be done. We have two trends worth noting in this edition of Dude with Decency, and in the research papers they always seem to be covered separately (despite the similar time frames in which they occur). As for today’s first data trend, I’ve linked the referenced abstract below:
The title alone is alarming, and things don’t get much brighter in the abstract itself. In short, for eight years Dr. Gundry has utilized the “PULS Cardiac Test” to generate a score predictive of one’s 5 year risk (percentage chance) “of a new Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS).” Dr. Gundry has measured this score every 3-6 months in his patient population over the eight year timeframe, establishing a history. For added context, his piece covers 566 patients, aged 28-97, with both male and female participants.
And now back to the alarming stuff. Dr. Gundry found “dramatic changes” to his patients’ PULS scores following second dose of either of the mRNA vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer). From the abstract linked above:
“These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac. We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.”
I started bolding highlights within those few sentences for added emphasis, but it soon became clear that the ENTIRE section was worthy of bolded font. So we’ll go the bullet-point highlight route instead:
PULS score increase - from 11% to 25% 5 year ACS risk
Changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose
Dramatic increase in inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of the cardiac muscle
At this point I will pause and again remind readers that I am not a doctor, though heart inflammation and T cell infiltration of the heart muscle seem like nothing to take lightly regardless of one’s training (or lack thereof). And at the time of writing, changes persisted for AT LEAST 2.5 months post second dose. So as of now, there does not seem to be a definitive endpoint to the changes that increase one’s risk of ACS. I find that troubling, to say the least.
For the sake of discussion, let’s stick with 2.5 months of increased heart risks post second dose of mRNA vaccine as the first concept to grasp for today’s stack. Keep this in mind as we cover the second concept, with the referenced study linked below.
SARS-CoV-2 vaccine protection and deaths among US veterans during 2021 - Cohn et al., Science
This study, as published in the journal Science, reported on vaccine effectiveness against infection (VE-I) and death (VE-D) by vaccine type in a large sample (780,000+ individuals) from the Veterans Health Administration. The key findings on VE-I: “From February to October 2021, VE-I declined from 87.9% to 48.1%, and the decline was greatest for the Janssen vaccine resulting in a VE-I of 13.1%.”
While the data was better for VE-D by comparison (which the study breaks out for groups aged below 65 years, and then again for 65 years and above), this is still a dramatic drop in vaccine effectiveness against infection over the course of 6-8 months. The authors point to the emergence of the Delta variant as a contributor to this drop in their discussion of the data. Though worth noting, other studies have looked at waning efficacy overall as an explanation for declining protection (as opposed to pointing at a specific variant). The final paragraph of this article from the Los Angeles Times makes a similar point with regard to the immune system’s defenses here. Regardless of cause, declining vaccine effectiveness against infection is the second concept to grasp in today’s edition. As the Science study acknowledges: “Although breakthrough infection increased risk of death, vaccination remained protective against death in persons who became infected during the Delta surge.”
Zooming out for the big picture - between Dr. Gundry’s findings as well as the Science study, we have two realities seemingly playing out within a short time frame:
Dramatic changes to one’s risk of developing a new Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) for at least 2.5 months post second dose. (Dr. Gundry abstract)
Declining vaccine effectiveness against infection within the 6-8 month time frame (Science study). And while vaccine effectiveness against death performed better in the study by comparison, breakthrough infection increased risk of death.
My takeaway: There seems to be a tradeoff here - an increase in heart risks (with an endpoint yet to be determined) stacked against a protection against infection that significantly declines over time. Even if we use the 2.5 month endpoint for one’s increase in heart risks (remember, it was at least 2.5 months), we’re essentially being asked (or mandated, in some cases) to accept an increase in ACS risk for a few extra months longer of vaccine protection against infection… before that protection significantly declines. (And then accept a booster!)
Remember - vaccines do not appear to stop transmission, nor do they seem to significantly alter viral load based on recent data (see post #3). And while we’ve yet to cover this in detail here, there appear to be significant differences in relative risk between individuals based on age, the presence of comorbidities, certain immune conditions, etc. (the topic of a future stack, no doubt!).
I attempt to break these concepts down into bite-sized snippets, both for readers and for myself, as the COVID situation is a tangled web of confusion and data that conflicts with the messaging we’re being given. But I’ll say something definitively here - I am all for individuals making informed health decisions for this virus. If you are vaccinated (or want and plan to be), I am in your corner. If you don’t want the vaccine (and never want one, for whatever your reasons), I am in your corner, too. No one has a more intimate knowledge of your health than you (and/or your doctor), and the choice should be in your hands based on your own set of circumstances.
That being said… I am vehemently against mandates, especially with such important findings about heart risks and waning protection just now becoming clearer. Where there are differences in individual risk (from the virus or the vaccines), there should be individual choice. And STILL, there is the increasingly robust reality of natural immunity to factor into the equation - many have already HAD this virus and recovered!
As I mention repeatedly, I am no doctor and nothing I ponder on this blog should be considered medical advice - I’m just a guy trying to make sense of things, and I’m having a very difficult time reconciling an increased risk of heart effects (of unknown duration and scope) vs. the protective effects of a product that seem to decline over a matter of months (and thus, necessitating boosters) - especially in the context of virus that many, many people have already defeated themselves.
Well, this was a longer one today! I may not have the answers, but as always, more questions to come. Thanks for reading - and please consider subscribing for more!
-G