Hacker News Reader

Comment by ekianjo | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

I will just directly say what you are alluding to and take the hit of downvotes. Many studies have now found the vaccinations cause myocardial injury such as this one that found 1 in 35 people receiving the vaccination showed markers of myocardial damage. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978

These articles seem to be trying to point the cause of the damage to the Covid disease when the evidence unmentioned shows that the damage is coming from the vaccinations.

Studies show that Covid causes worse myocardial injury at a greater rate independent of the vaccine, which makes logical sense since the vaccine just produces a small part of Covid. It's better to get a vaccine with a small chance of heart damage than a disease with a large chance.

But...the vaccinated can still get Covid just the same. So, it's not a "have one OR have the other" situation. When you take the vaccine, it's a "have one PLUS have the other" situation.

Vaccinated people do not have the same chances or severity of Covid. It greatly reduces your chances of having any symptoms at all, let alone severe illness.

From April 2020, far before any covid vaccine came out:

> An article entitled “Impact of complicated myocardial injury on the clinical outcome of severe or critically ill COVID-19 patients” in CJC by Professor Hesong Zeng and colleagues from Tongji Hospital Affiliated to Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, reported on the impact of evidence of myocardial injury among patients with COVID-19.

> Among patients with myocardial injury, hospital mortality was more than three times higher than the normal serum cardiac troponin level. Moreover, the levels of C-reactive protein, average 153.6 ng/L vs. 49.8 ng/L, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, 852.0 ng/L vs. 197.0 ng/L, were significantly higher in patients with myocardial injury.

> It appears that prevalence of myocardial injury is high among severe or critically ill COVID-19 patients, who face a significantly higher risk of in-hospital mortality.

> Furthermore, the study suggests that it is important to monitor and manage myocardial injury during hospitalization for severe or critically ill COVID-19 patients.

> The chest computed tomography (CT) features of patients with heart failure are similar to those with COVID-19.

> Therefore, it is a great challenge to make a clear diagnosis early during the global pandemic, as pointed out by Professor Shenghua Zhou and colleagues from Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University in their article entitled “Comparison of heart failure and COVID-2019 in chest CT features and clinical characteristics.”

> For imaging features, both groups had ground-glass opacity and thickening of interlobular septa, but the ratio of central and gradient distribution was higher in patients with heart failure than that in patients with COVID-19 (4/7 vs. 1/12).

> It seems enlargement of pulmonary veins, lesion distribution, and morphology are highly important clinical findings to identify the chest CT features between heart failure and COVID-19. Additional research on the prognosis, evaluation, and management of cardiovascular diseases and cardiovascular complications in COVID-19 patients is essential.

https://www.acc.org/Latest-in-Cardiology/ten-points-to-remem...

Without agreeing with the OP, this lengthy quote didn't respond to his statement on confounding factors.

The point is that here's a lot of evidence from before the alleged confounding factor even showed up, so that means there's something there.

For example, from Sep 2020.

https://www.science.org/content/article/evidence-builds-covi...

Several more articles and studies from March and April 2020 if one cares to look them up.

So yes, it was definitely responding to their claim.

Tobacco?

BPA?

Leaded gas?

Trollitis?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com