Covid Fearmongering and Lies Home Page

Other Websites, Newsletters, and Books by the Director

Why I Decided to Get Vaccinated

(Refuting Covid Antivaxxers)

Part Four

By Gary F. Zeolla

This four-part article is continued from Why I Decided to Get Vaccinated (Refuting Covid Antivaxxers) Part Three.

Those with Comorbidities

      Given the information in the preceding section in Part Three, it is those who are 50 and over and especially those 60 and over who should most consider getting the Covid vaccine it you have not already done so. Next are those who have specific comorbidities, most especially obesity, hypertension, and diabetes. I have addressed such risk factors previously in my Coronavirus (CV) writings.

      But that is an important point that bears elaboration. A local conservative talk show has been very anti-Covid-vaccine. On one particular episode in early May, she detailed on her radio show “13 reasons for not getting the vaccine.” Most of them were faulty and have already been addressed in this four-part article.

      But one point she indicted is that those with health problems should not get the vaccine. She did so on that episode by way of commending those who called her show, mentioned about their specific health problems, and said that is why they are not getting the vaccine.

      However, one caller said that he got the vaccine on the advice of his cardiologist. He then revealed a real shocker—his cardiologist was the talk show host’s husband! The talk show host was then forced to admit that her husband recommended to all of his patients that they should get the Covid vaccine.

      Think about that. The talk show host, with no medical background, is recommending people with health problems to not the get vaccine, while her husband, with decades of medical background, is recommending to all of his patients, all of whom assumedly have heart problems, to get the vaccine. Who are you going to trust?

      The point is, next to the elderly, it is those with health problems who are most at risk for serious consequences from a CV infection. That is why it is imperative for them to get the vaccine. My health problems were another factor in my decision to do so.

      Now, there are some health conditions that might preclude getting vaccines, such as those who are immunocompromised for one reason or another. But that is generally only the case for vaccines which contain a live but wakened virus. Since the three Covid vaccines in use in the US do not, it is believed they are safe for even such people, though they might not be as effective. That issue is currently being researched here in the Pittsburgh, PA region where this writer lives.

      People who are immunocompromised have a weakened immune system. Medical conditions — AIDS, cancer, diabetes, malnutrition, and more — can cause a compromised immune system. So can certain medicines and medical therapies that suppress the immune system.

      Because the immune system is crucial in fighting off disease, immunocompromised people may be vulnerable to certain infections, including COVID-19.

      According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), immunocompromised people are at higher risk for complications from COVID-19. They are more likely to have severe illness, be hospitalized, or die…

      For safety reasons, immunocompromised people can’t get some vaccines — such as ones that contain a live but weakened virus or bacteria (like the measles/mumps/rubella vaccine).

      The COVID-19 vaccines developed by Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J do not contain a live virus. Because of that, immunocompromised people can get these vaccines.

      There is no fully reported data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised people. However, the CDC says there is no data that shows the vaccines are unsafe for people who are immunocompromised….

      Scientists continue to monitor the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine in immunocompromised people. Clinical studies are ongoing….

      Because of the risk of COVID-19 for immunocompromised people, they should get the COVID-19 vaccine.

      The CDC says immunocompromised people should be aware that they may have a lesser immune response to the vaccine. Because of that, they should continue to follow COVID-19 prevention methods even after getting vaccinated. This includes avoiding crowds, washing their hands, maintaining social distancing, and wearing a mask when around people not from their household.

      If you are scheduled to begin immunosuppressive therapy, talk to your doctor about when to schedule your COVID-19 vaccine...

      UPMC [University of Pittsburgh Medical Center] is conducting the COVID-19 Vaccine in the Immunocompromised Study (CoVICS) to measure how well the vaccine works in immunocompromised people (UPMC).

      This advice from one of the two large health systems here in western PA is counter to that of the talk show host but in line with her husband’s advice. But the uncertainty is why you should consult your doctor if you are in this situation before getting the vaccine.

      As for that talk show host, she is now off of the air for the second time. I did not hear why her show was cancelled this time. But I would guess her anti-vaccine message was part of the reason. I strongly disagree with such censorship or silencing of people with differing views, even when I disagree with them. But I can understand why it happened in this case. The radio station probably could not risk the lawsuits that might come if someone took her advice and did not get vaccinated, got Covid, and suffered serious consequences.

      But she is still active on social media. That is because social media sites are protected from lawsuits, due to Section 230. If you don’t know what that is, I discuss it at length in my two new politics books: Trump’s 2020 Election Tweets, Georgia Phone Call, and January 2021 Speeches and Alleged Corruption, Bias, and Fraud. But she still is censored on some platforms. I also address such censorship in those two books and again express why I disagree with it.

Taking the Virus Seriously

      While I’m on the topic of female talk show hosts, a national host I listen to often downplays Covid and has said she will not get the vaccine. But when she went on break over the holidays, two different men filled in for her. But both of them took the virus much more seriously than her and said they would be getting the vaccine when it was their turn.

      The reason for the difference is both of them had lost loved ones to Covid. The first lost his father, while the second lost his mother-in-law, while it sounded the regular host had not lost a loved one to Covid. This pattern is often the case. Those who have lost loved ones to Covid or at least have a loved one who had a difficult and lengthy recovery from Covid take the virus more seriously and are more likely to get vaccinated, while those who do not even know someone who died from Covid or who a had a difficult time with it take the virus less seriously and are less likely to get vaccinated. But of course, a person’s risk of dying or suffering from Covid does not depend on if that person knows someone who died of or suffered greatly with Covid.

      As for myself, I do not know anyone personally who died from Covid, but I do know people who had a difficult and lengthy recovery. And that again is the main the issue for me, not just the risk of death but the risk of being sick for an extended period of time.

What About Those Who Already Had Covid?

      I got sick a couple of times during this pandemic, but I never got tested as to if I had Covid or not (see Different Perspective in Dealing with the Coronavirus). I wish I had gotten tested, as if I tested positive, I would not have gotten the vaccine. At least, that was my perspective throughout this pandemic. Once someone was infected, they could not be infected again. And that held true for most of the pandemic. But there was a couple of exceptions early on. Last spring (2020), I read about a couple of cases of someone getting infected twice. The reason for it is they were infected with two slightly different versions of the CV.

      Most people don’t realize it, but from of the start of the pandemic here in the States, there were two versions of the CV circulating. The first was the original version that came directly from Wuhan, China and that hit the west coast first in January 2020. The second came by way of the Wuhan Coronavirus circulating into Italy, then from Italy through the rest of Europe. It then jumped the pond and made its way to the east coast. But as it passed through Europe, it mutated slightly.

      That European variant is slightly more virulent than the original Wuhan virus. That is why New York initially got hit harder than California. But then the European variant made its way across the country and became the dominant variant in the USA. It later hit California and that state had its hard time with the virus.

      In any case, those couple of case early on were of someone getting infected first with one of these variants then with the other. But it was just that, two cases out of at that time 100,000s of cases.

      But now, we have more significant variants by way of the UK variant, the South African variant, and the Brazilian variant. These variants are even more different from the Wuhan virus than the European variant was. Also, the UK variant is more contagious while the South African and Brazilian variants are more lethal than either the Wuhan virus or the European variants. And the UK variant is now the dominant variant in the USA.

       All of this is to say, if someone was infected early on with either the Wuhan virus or European variant, that person could still get infected with one of these newer variants. But, as previously discussed, the vaccines protect against all of these variants.

      However, if you were previously infected with any variant, you might only need one dose of the normally two dose Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. That is because your infection would function as the first dose. That can be seen in why two doses are needed in the first place.

      During early studies, researchers found that the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines provoke a relatively weak immune response when given as just one dose. However, there was a stronger immune response when a second dose was added.

      Basically, the first dose of the vaccine starts the process of building up protection. The second dose works to greatly reinforce this protection…

      For both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccine, there’s a waiting period between the first and second dose. … Why do you need this waiting period?

      The first dose helps to prime your immune system. It introduces it to the spike protein and allows it to generate a small immune response prior to the second dose. Time is needed to allow this process to develop properly (Healthline).

      The first dose educates your immune cells about producing the right antibodies, but that lesson might not stick; without the follow-up the immune system may start to forget it.

      The second dose reminds your immune cells of what to do, and they’ll start producing stronger antibodies that provide long-term protection (Bustle).

      It should be noted that those who have received both doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have higher immune antibody counts than those who have natural immunity from a CV infection. That is why one dose of one of these vaccines might be a good idea, even if you had Covid. These points are also why you should not skip the second dose of these vaccines if you have not had Covid.

      But many people aren’t getting the message that the second dose matters. More than five million people, or nearly 8 percent of those who got a first shot of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, have missed their second doses, according to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [as of April 30, 2021].

      The reasons people are missing their second shots vary. Some people say they are worried about side effects, which have widely been reported to be worse after the second dose. Others say second shot appointments have been canceled, and it’s been hard to reschedule. But new research also shows that many people are just confused and wrongly think one shot is enough….

      “The second dose of mRNA vaccines induces a level of virus neutralizing antibodies about 10-fold greater than the first dose,” said Dr. Paul Offit, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a member of the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory panel. “Also, the second dose induces cellular immunity, which predicts not only longer protection, but better protection against variant strains.”

      It’s also not clear how long first-dose protection lasts without the boost from a second dose, Dr. Fauci said during a White House press briefing in April (New York Times).

      Again, what is said here about those who only get one dose would be true about those who have had Covid. But even then, you might still need to get the second dose for non-health reasons.

      While it’s not clear how much extra benefit a recovered Covid patient gets from two doses, versus a single dose, you need a second dose to provide proof of full vaccination, should you need it for travel or for work (New York Times).

      Since I would not need to “provide proof of full vaccination” for work or travel, I probably would not have gotten the second dose, if I had previously had Covid, given that I knew I would have a hard time with that second dose. But the reader needs to consider how needing proof of vaccination applies to you.

      If you’ve already had COVID-19, should you still get vaccinated? The answer is yes. Several reasons for that. One is that the duration of immunity that you receive after having COVID-19 disease is variable. Our current estimates are that that goes away over about three months. The vaccine protection can augment that. So our current recommendations are, if you’ve had COVID-19, wait until you’re better and up to about 90 days or three months and then receive the vaccine when you’re able to (WebMD).

      According to CDC guidance and everything we know of the science, your friend [who had Covid] absolutely should be vaccinated. That’s because we have been able to confirm that people who have recovered from COVID-19 can become reinfected. While current evidence suggests that reinfection doesn’t usually occur during the first couple of months after recovery from COVID-19, the risk of reinfection increases with time, as natural immunity decreases. New viral variants may increase the risk of reinfection even more (MIT Medical).

      The University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Institute of Immunology has been studying immune responses to the vaccines among people previously infected with the virus and comparing them to those of people who have never contracted it.

      Those who previously had COVID-19 had a strong immune response after just one dose of the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines, the researchers found. Those who have never had the virus were less protected, however….

      For people who’d already had mild or asymptomatic COVID-19, one dose of vaccine was enough to induce a maximal immune response, based on both strong antibody and memory B cell responses. That’s likely because their previous infection by the virus caused an immune response. Adding a second dose did not offer much more protection for the people in the Penn study…

      There’s also some concern that contracting the original strain of the virus might not offer protection from one of the variants.

      “The idea of one vaccine dose in these folks is like boosting something that the natural infection generated in them, providing, we hope, a little bit better protection,” Wherry said (WHYY. PBS).

However, there would not be any problems with getting both doses if you already had Covid:

      The Penn study did not show any evidence that a second dose could cause harm among those who have previously had COVID-19 (WHYY. PBS).

One last point is important to note:

Dr. Englund notes that for those who’ve had COVID-19 and have long haul symptoms (also called “long hauler syndrome”), getting the vaccine seems to help them finally recover from those lasting symptoms (Health Essentials).

What About the Young and Healthy?

      If I were young, say in my 20s or 30s, and healthy, would I still have gotten the vaccine? If you had asked me that questions a year ago, the answer would have been a definite, “No.” But now, I am not so sure.

      The reason is once again those nasty variants. It would seem the UK variant is causing more significant problems for those under 50 and even for children than the original Wuhan virus or European variant. That is why we are seeing a greater percentage of hospitalizations and deaths from Covid among those under fifty and among children.

      If that previous chart of the age breakdown percentages of deaths here in PA were to be redone with just numbers from March 6, 2021 to this date (mid-May), the percentages for the age groups 50 and above would be lower, while the percentages for the age groups under 50 would be higher.

      The overall number of deaths would be down. But that would mainly be to the majority of Pennsylvanians above 50 now being vaccinated and no longer dying, while a far lower percentage of those under fifty have been vaccinated. But they are now experiencing deaths due to the UK variant.

      Still, the vast majority of the young would not die, but they might now experience more significant symptoms, in some cases severe enough to require hospitalization.

      As such, yes, it I were young and healthy I probably would still have gotten the vaccine, given again, my history of having a hard time with the seasonal flu. I just don’t like being sick and having my lifestyle disrupted. It should also be noted that my flu story occurred when I was 39, so even back then, I was susceptible to long term effects from being sick.

The U.K. coronavirus variant known as B.1.1.7 is not only more transmissible, but also more deadly than other coronavirus variants, according to a new study published today [3/15/21].

B.1.1.7 was first identified in the U.K. last fall and by December it was detected in several other countries including the U.S. The variant is known to be substantially more transmissible than other SARS-CoV2 coronavirus lineages and quickly took over as the dominant variant in the U.K., late last year, sparking off a damaging and deadly second wave which leaves the U.K. currently second in the world for the most Covid-19 deaths per 100,000 people.

Scientists had suspected that B.1.1.7 might be more deadly, as well as more transmissible following spectacularly high numbers of Covid-19 deaths in the U.K. during the second wave this winter, which saw the U.K’s worst daily death total in January claim over 1,800 lives. But, the new study published in the journal Nature, led by researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine all but confirms that this correlation is genuine….

The good news, however, is that Covid-19 vaccines appear to be highly effective against the B.1.1.7 variant, with many countries including the U.S. hoping that fast vaccine rollouts will curb its spread (Forbes).

What used to be a mysterious new variant first detected in the UK is now the most dominant coronavirus strain in the US [as of April 18, 2021].

And unlike the original strain of the novel coronavirus, the more contagious B.1.1.7 strain is hitting young people particularly hard.

“(Covid-19) cases and emergency room visits are up,” said Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“We are seeing these increases in younger adults, most of whom have not yet been vaccinated.”

Now doctors say many young people are suffering Covid-19 complications they didn’t expect.

And it’s time to ditch the belief that only older adults or people with pre-existing conditions are at risk of severe Covid-19…

“The reason for this might be as simple as the older population in this country has either been exposed to this virus, killed by the virus, or now vaccinated against the virus.” …

As an emergency room doctor, [Dr. Megan] Ranney said she regularly sees young, previously healthy patients struggling with coronavirus.

Ranney said she generally defines “young people” as those under 50. But “no matter which age cutoff you use, right now, we’re seeing more B.1.1.7 than the older variants.” (CNN).

A coronavirus variant first identified in the U.K. has long been known to be more contagious and more likely to make people sick than the initial form of the virus, but researchers now say it also is more likely to affect children as well….

“Because of its greater contagiousness, it’s more transmissible, [and] it is becoming more and more prevalent,” [Dr. David] Montefiori said. Children also are showing symptoms when infected with B.1.1.7, he said.

“There are quite a few cases of kids who are getting really, really sick when they get infected with this variant,” he said. “I personally feel like we probably pulled the trigger a little too soon in terms of letting kids go back to school.” …

But Dr. Daniel Benjamin, the Kiser-Arena Distinguished Professor of Pediatrics at Duke University, disagrees. …

The bottom line about variants is that they don’t get through masks any more than COVID did six months ago,” he said. “If [students] are not masking – and mask fatigue outside of the school environment is certainly happening – then it’s more transmissible. Therefore, more children are getting infected” (WRAL).

“The concern is that we are going to get more variants down the line,” Infectious Disease Physician at Mercy Medical Center, Matt Miles said. “We can’t tell what those variants will look like but the real point of getting vaccinations done and getting the population vaccinated is you then provide less of an opportunity for that virus to propagate itself in the population to replicate itself because the more it replicates the more likely you are going to get mutations and these variants are going to potentially develop” (Action New Now).

As more and more adults get vaccinated against COVID-19, a growing percentage of new cases are appearing in children. During a public meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Dr. Sara Oliver said that in April, a higher percentage of new cases were reported in children between the ages of 12 and 17 than in adults over the age of 65….

A study released by the American Academy of Pediatrics seemed to support Dr. Oliver’s claims. The study looked at data from the last week of April and found that children accounted for 22.4% of new cases during that time. Last May, the number of cases in children accounted for just 3% of the total cases in the United States (iHeart. Kids).

Mistakes by the Authorities

      Before closing this four-part article, I want to add a bit of commentary based on all that I learned as I did this research.

      As can be seen in my CV writings, I believe the authorities, be they federal, state, or local, and be they government or medical, have made many mistakes in dealing with the CV. In light of the information gleaned from my research about the vaccines, I can add more thoughts in that regard.

      First and foremost among the mistakes have been the lockdowns. They have caused economic, psychological, and physical hardship for millions. I discuss the many ways this is true in my CV writings. But now, in light of this research, it is obvious the lockdowns also prevented the young and healthy from getting infected at a time before the variants developed.

      The authorities said that was a good thing, as they treated everyone the same. But, as I detail in my four-part article My Multi-Group Plan for Overcoming the Coronavirus Crisis, a better approach would have been to recognize the different risk from the CV to different people groups.

      Yes, those over 50 or with comorbidities needed to be protected, but those who were healthy and under 50 did not. That people group should have been allowed, even encouraged, to live their lives as usual, get infected, and most all of the time, recover with little or no problems from the original CV.

      In that way, once the vaccines became available, they could have been focused on those over 50, with most of those under 50 already having natural immunity. The authorities should also have made it clear that those who already had the CV did not need to get vaccinated right away. And when they did, they only needed one dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

      In that way, we would not have had to have included “essential workers” among the first group to get the vaccines, as most of them are younger and would have already had the virus itself. That would have enabled us to get the majority of the older population vaccinated quicker.

      Once that was finished, with the majority of the younger population having natural immunity, we would have already reached herd immunity and the pandemic would have already been over before the variants began to circulate here in the USA. That would have saved the young from being put at risk by the variants.

      But as it was, the lockdowns extended the pandemic and the time to herd immunity, giving the variants time to circulate, putting even the younger at risk and thus necessitating them getting vaccinated at the same time as those over 50. The authorities also barley mentioned about those who already had the CV not needing vaccinated right away and only needing one dose. But them getting two doses wasted the vaccine and unnecessarily further slowed down the administration of the vaccine to those who were over 50.

      As a result, we are still dealing with this pandemic, though it is slowing greatly. My local ABC affiliate, Channel 4 WTAE, reported on May 10, 2021 that for the first time since the pandemic started no state recorded an increase in cases or deaths in the past week. All case and death numbers either stayed the same or even went down in all 50 states. Then a week later, on May 17, 2021, CBS Evening News reported that 16 states reported no CV deaths for the previous day.

      And here in Pennsylvania and more locally in Allegheny County (where Pittsburgh is located), we are now seeing the lowest number of cases since Halloween (Trib Live. Allegheny). That was before the post-Halloween surge that occurred due to Halloween gatherings. We then sadly saw another surge after Thanksgiving and again after Christmas and New Year’s, as did most of the country, just as I predicted would happen in my masks article. But this turnaround is due to the vaccinations and natural immunity combining together, bringing us close to herd immunity, which should have been the goal all along.

      That all is a very good thing. But we could have gotten here sooner, saving many lives and much suffering, if the known differing risks for different groups and differing needs for the vaccines had been followed and promoted by the authorities early on getting us to herd immunity even sooner.

Conclusion

      I titled this four-part article “Why I Decided to Get Vaccinated” not “Why You Should Get Vaccinated.” That is because I am just presenting the reasons for my own personal decision to get vaccinated, based on my own unique health situation. The reader needs to make that decision based on your personal health situation, in consultation with your doctor.

      However, sadly, much misinformation is being circulated on the Internet and over the airwaves. The purpose of this article was to refute such false information and to provide the reader issues to consider, so that you can make your decision based on accurate information and a grasp of all of the factors that need to go into that decision.

June 9, 2021 Update

Irregular Menstruation, Miscarriages, and Heart Inflammation

      I need to correct one point in this article and to add about two other issues.

Irregular Menstruation:

      It is true there have been cases of women who have experienced early and heavy periods after getting a Covid vaccine. But according to a doctor on Newsmax, that is a good thing, as it shows the vaccine is working. That is because there is a large number of immune cells in the uterus. However, the reaction is transient and usually clears up with a period or two.

Kate Larsen: “Do you think the vaccine is harmful to women who are experiencing these cycle changes and does it affect fertility?”

Dr. Heather Huddleston: “No. So what I would say is that just in the same way that some women and men have had a sore arm, after the vaccine, or maybe felt tired, maybe had even a low grade fever, these are all things that people experienced in a very short term way after the vaccine. And within a few days, people are back to normal. That is a transient reaction to the vaccine. And it’s a representation of your immune system being activated. If, and it’s still a big if. But if these menstrual cycle changes are also sort of linked into that upregulation of the immune system that we’re seeing, then I would view that in the same way I would view a sore arm. It’s a nuisance, it’s troubling in that moment, but it’s not a representation of something that’s going to continue. It’s not a representation of any sort of permanent harm or damage. There is no reason to think there’s reason to be concerned over time, and there’s no reason to think that there’s any impact on fertility."

Dr. Huddleston says women should continue to get vaccinated (ABC7News).

      [Dr. Tall] Bogler said the uterus lining is part of the immune system, which means these side effects could be inflammation triggered by a female’s immune response to the vaccine.

      Both experts [Bogler and Dr. Jerilynn Prior] maintain that the events are short-lived, do not impact fertility, and are non-life-threatening, but they should be reported to your doctor (Global News).

Miscarriages:

      That same doctor on Newsmax made it clear that claims of miscarriages were not true. As reported in this four-part article, what is usually happening is a woman has a miscarriage then later gets the vaccine. But Covid antivaxxers deceptively flip the dates and make it sound like the miscarriage happened after the woman was vaccinated.

      Otherwise, the number of miscarriages is the same as would be expected in a given number of pregnant women who are not vaccinated. Or the claim of miscarriages is based on a misuse of the VAERS data, or the UK’s equivalent thereof:

      However, these figures have been taken out of context, having failed to mention the overall increase in the number of vaccines being administered. This, according to experts speaking to Reuters, must then be compared to the expected frequency of miscarriages occurring in the UK (Reuters. Fact).

      There is no pattern to suggest an elevated risk of miscarriage related to exposure to the COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy,” the MHRA [the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency].

      The agency explained the number of women vaccinated between December to March had to be considered alongside the expected frequency of miscarriage in a population.

      “The numbers of people who have received a 1st dose COVID-19 vaccination increased from 1,340,043 to 4,322,791 for the same time frame. At least half of these would be expected to be women, so the number of women of child-bearing age (taking the vaccine) is estimated to have increased from 665,424 to 2,146,866 for the same time frame,” the MHRA said.

      It is estimated that as many as 26% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, with nearly 80% of early miscarriages occurring in the first 12 weeks, or first trimester, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

      Given this, the MHRA acknowledged “some miscarriages would be expected to occur following vaccination purely by chance” (USA Today). Fact).

      Meanwhile, the blog post said that a stillbirth had also occurred after the expectant mother received the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, adding: “Shockingly this has not been labelled as a fatality.” The MHRA has challenged this claim.

      It told Reuters that some events can be reported incorrectly and confirmed that “no actual stillbirths” have been reported to the agency to date. The MHRA then contextualised one report of a baby born prematurely after the mother was given a Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, saying premature births occur in around eight in 100 births in the UK. Therefore, some would be expected to occur following vaccination “purely by chance”. …

      VERDICT: Missing context. There is no evidence to suggest COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of miscarriage. Data cited in the blog post has missed crucial context related to the overall number of vaccinations administered in the time frame, along with the number of miscarriages expected to occur among the population (Reuters. Fact).

Heart Inflammation:

      It is also true there have been rare cases of teen males experiencing heart inflammation after being vaccinated, now that the Pfizer vaccine has received emergency use authorization for those 12-18. But, as with the blood clots, those rare events have been well reported by the CCD and the media. There has been no attempt to hide the side effect, showing once again the CCD is being very cautions in reporting on legitimate cases of side effects.

      In this case, the heart inflammation is again transient and usually clears up within a few weeks and no deaths have occurred to it. Moreover, the condition may not even have been caused by the vaccine:

      CDC monitoring systems had not found more cases than would be expected in the population, but members of the committee on vaccinations felt that healthcare providers should be made aware of the reports of the “potential adverse event,” the committee said in the statement (Yahoo!. U.S, CCD)

      According to an article published online Friday [6/4/21] in Pediatrics, seven teenage boys in the U.S. experienced heart inflammation following the second dose of the Pfizer shot, but more research is required to prove the cases are linked to the vaccine.

      None of the boys, who ranged in age from 14 to 19, were critically ill, but imaging tests showed a type of heart muscle inflammation called myocarditis. They all received second Pfizer doses in April or May.

      They were all well enough to go home after two to six days in the hospital and are “doing pretty well,” according to Dr. Preeti Jaggi, an Emory University infectious disease specialist and co-author of the Pediatrics report (Newsweek. More).

    The cases typically developed in older adolescents, most of them boys, three to four days after they got a second dose. Virtually all were considered mild, presenting as chest pain and tightness that resolved after treatment with over-the-counter medications. None of the patients appear to have died or suffered serious cardiac malfunction, though it’s too early to know whether they will suffer long-term effects (Trib/ Los Angeles Times).

For a follow-up to this four-part article, see the two-part article Supplements to Reduce the Risk of Covid-19.

References:

See Why I Decided to Get Vaccinated (Refuting Covid Antivaxxers) References.

Why I Decided to Get Vaccinated (Refuting Covid Antivaxxers) Part Four. Copyright © 2021 by Gary F. Zeolla (www.Zeolla.org).

The above article was posted on this website May 21, 2021.
The June 9, 2021 Update was added on that date.