Heart-failure patients had 82% better odds of living longer if vaccinated against COVID

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

 

The first study of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness in a large population of adult heart-failure patients suggests that vaccinated participants are 82% more likely to live longer than their unvaccinated peers, according to an analysis presented over the weekend at the Heart Failure 2024 scientific congress of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) in Lisbon, Portugal.

More than 64 million global heart-failure patients

Researchers from the National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital in Goyang, South Korea, analyzed information on vaccinations and clinical outcomes among 147,118 heart-failure patients from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, which covers nearly all Koreans. 

...

47% lower risk of hospitalization for heart failure

Relative to one or no vaccination, COVID-19 vaccination was tied to an 82% lower risk of death from any cause, a 47% lower risk of hospitalization for heart failure, and a 13% reduced risk of infection over 6 months. Vaccination was also linked to significantly lower risks of stroke, heart attack, myocarditis/pericarditis, and venous thromboembolism.

 

(more)

 

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/data-heart-failure-patients-have-82-better-odds-living-longer-if-vaccinated-against-covid

 

 

[save the frogs]

This is complete nonsense

[still kicking]

6 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

This is complete nonsense

You are a doctor of course 

[cmjl]

Tell that to my friends who,after believing what our so called 'experts' said we had to do went ahead and had the jabs and have regretted it ever since,one is now dead,another had a massive stroke caused by a blood clot, others have varying degrees of heart failure requiring heart pacemakers,others have various other ailments which were acquired after the jab.

 

As I've said before about various subjects,we can all find articles on the internet to support our way of thinking,an enquiring mind looks deeper for what the likes of Big Pharma want to hide,after all,it's in their best interests that they aren't found out in a big lie.

[BigBruv]

 

 

Absolute nonsense.

 

 

 

[roamer]

It's not nonsense. This statistical analysis is similar to what is being seen in other large scale studies in Europe & the UK. It's a huge drop in heart failure deaths in vaccinated subjects who are subject to cardiovascular events. The only nonsense here is people commenting on something they know nothing about. 

[save the frogs]

2 hours ago, still kicking said:

You are a doctor of course 

thats what I tell the ladies, anyway

[pomchop]

27 minutes ago, roamer said:

It's not nonsense. This statistical analysis is similar to what is being seen in other large scale studies in Europe & the UK. It's a huge drop in heart failure deaths in vaccinated subjects who are subject to cardiovascular events. The only nonsense here is people commenting on something they know nothing about. 

The internet doctors don't like it when presented with facts that don't fit their conspiracy theories.

[impulse]

My brother's on the heart transplant list.  He gets knocked off the list if he doesn't keep up with his boosters.

 

Of course, refusing to treat him would have a deleterious effect on his outcome. 

 

We'll never know if the vaccine itself is a positive or a negative.

 

[0ffshore360]

"Relative to one or no vaccination, COVID-19 vaccination was tied to an 82% lower risk of death from any cause"...

 A magic bullet now?

"a 13% reduced risk of infection over 6 months." ? Covid infection risk?

"More than 64 million global heart-failure patients".

An impressive statistic but without directed reference to any other information.

Excuse me for not interpreting the intent of the presented article in any positive way.

 

[Ralf001]

Vaccinations that can cause blood clots are good for people with heart failure issues.

 

Amazing !

[sungod]

3 hours ago, roamer said:

The only nonsense here is people commenting on something they know nothing about. 

 

So you are an authority on the subject then going by your last post?

[BE88]

BS

[BKKBike09]

7 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

vaccinated participants are 82% more likely to live longer than their unvaccinated peers

 

Essentially meaningless data without proper context.

 

"82% more likely ..." - does that mean instead of 2 in 10 chance of dying within 1 year, vaccination brings that down to nearer 1 in 10? That would be a definite benefit. But what if it's 2 in 100, dropping to 1 in 100? Less so.

 

"live longer ..." - how much longer? On average 5 years? Again a definite benefit. But on average 5 months? Again less so.

 

Nothing to do with vax / anti-vax, all to do with FACTS.

 

 

[impulse]

1 hour ago, BKKBike09 said:

 

Essentially meaningless data without proper context.

 

"82% more likely ..." - does that mean instead of 2 in 10 chance of dying within 1 year, vaccination brings that down to nearer 1 in 10? That would be a definite benefit. But what if it's 2 in 100, dropping to 1 in 100? Less so.

 

"live longer ..." - how much longer? On average 5 years? Again a definite benefit. But on average 5 months? Again less so.

 

Nothing to do with vax / anti-vax, all to do with FACTS.

 

Agreed.  My mind also goes to the question of what other behaviors are common to people who would tend to get vaccinated?  Do they visit the doctor more than the non-vaxxed?   Are they more diligent about taking all their meds, including their heart meds?  Do they eat healthier?  Do they have better access to all healthcare resources (like money...)?

 

The study doesn't seem to look at a causal link.  Just a correlation.  Which could have nothing to do with the vaxxes themselves.

 

[stevenl]

9 hours ago, save the frogs said:

This is complete nonsense

 

8 hours ago, BigBruv said:

 

 

Absolute nonsense.

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, BE88 said:

BS

It's always good to be critical of research, even more so when presented with limited data.

Looking forward to your comprehensive analysis of the data.

[impulse]

33 minutes ago, stevenl said:

It's always good to be critical of research, even more so when presented with limited data.

Looking forward to your comprehensive analysis of the data.

 

The COVID vax reduces COVID infections by 13%, but reduces mortality from all causes by 82%?

 

Doesn't pass the sniff test for causality.  There have to be some other factors.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Virtually all the studies done on the effectiveness of COVID vaccines from Omicron onward have shown that they're far more effective in keeping people out of the hospital and helping prevent them from dying from COVID.... and less effective in merely preventing infections...  That makes the findings of the current study entirely consistent with those that have preceded it.

 

You're sniffing up the wrong tree.

 

The OP article, btw, also mentions that the findings of this latest study also are in line with those that have preceded it. From the OP:

 

"Previous studies have shown that COVID-19 vaccination is safe in patients with cardiovascular diseases such as heart failure and that COVID-19 outcomes tend to be more severe in patients with the condition."

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

57 minutes ago, impulse said:

There have to be some other factors.

 

 

The announcement of the study findings indicated they picked their unvaccinated and vaccinated study participants in a way that controlled for confounding factors:

 

"The study included 651,127 patients aged 18 years or older with heart failure. The average age was 69.5 years and 50% were women. Of the total study population, 538,434 (83%) were defined as vaccinated and 112,693 (17%) as unvaccinated. To control for factors that could influence the relationship between vaccination status and outcomes, the researchers performed 1:1 matching of vaccinated and unvaccinated patients according to age, sex, other health conditions (e.g. high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol, etc.), income, and region of residence. This resulted in 73,559 vaccinated patients and 73,559 unvaccinated patients for the comparative analyses.

 

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1043942

 

But I understand from your comments earlier in the thread and your above-quoted remark, you seem to be looking for any reason to think that the study didn't really find what it really found.

 

To wit, during the months the heart failure patients were tracked:

 

"Vaccination was associated with an 82% lower risk of all-cause mortality,⁷ 47% lower risk of hospitalisation for heart failure,⁸ and 13% reduced risk of COVID-19 infection⁹ compared with no vaccination. Regarding cardiovascular complications, vaccination was associated with significantly lower risks of stroke, heart attack, myocarditis/pericarditis, and venous thromboembolism compared to no vaccination."

 

 

Edited May 19 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, impulse said:

 

The COVID vax reduces COVID infections by 13%, but reduces mortality from all causes by 82%?

 

Doesn't pass the sniff test for causality.  There have to be some other factors.

 

Again an opinion contradicting extensive research without any data. 'I don't like the result, there must be something else'.

[impulse]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

But I understand from your comments earlier in the thread and your above-quoted remark, you seem to be looking for any reason to think that the study didn't really find what it really found.

 

Ask yourself this...  If the vaccines actually reduced "all cause mortality" by 82%, would we only be reading about it in some obscure paper? 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

20 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Ask yourself this...  If the vaccines actually reduced "all cause mortality" by 82%, would we only be reading about it in some obscure paper? 

 

 

All-cause mortality among patients with heart failure. The study topic was aimed solely at that limited population -- those with heart failure. Thus was most of interest to doctors who treat those patients, e.g., the European Society of Cardiology, where the research was just presented.

 

But the research has already been reported in multiple other sources, such as:

 

https://cosmosmagazine.com/health/heart-patients-improve-with-covid-jabs/

 

https://www.miragenews.com/covid-19-vaccine-boosts-lifespan-in-heart-1232898/

 

https://jang.com.pk/en/11567-covid-19-vaccine-boosts-survival-rate-in-heart-patients-study-news

 

etc etc.

 

Meanwhile, it's interesting that a similar study and findings were reported out of the UK earlier this spring:

COVID Vaccines Reduce Risk of Heart Failure, Clots

March 18, 2024 – By now, most of us have heard the benefits of getting a COVID-19 vaccine, like the reduced risk of serious illness should you get a COVID infection and a significantly lowered chance of hospitalization or death should you get sick. Now, there may be another benefit to add: Getting a COVID shot may also help reduce the risk of heart failure. 

 

That's according to researchers from the University of Oxford in England, who found that people who got COVID-19 vaccines had a reduced risk of heart failure, compared to people who didn’t get vaccinated. 

 

The protection lasted up to a year and also lowered the chance of experiencing heart inflammation and some types of blood clots. The findings were published this month by the journal Heart. 

 

(more)

 

https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20240318/covid-vaccines-reduce-risk-heart-failure-clots

 

 

Edited May 19 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[impulse]

47 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Meanwhile, it's interesting that a similar study and findings were reported out of the UK earlier this spring:

COVID Vaccines Reduce Risk of Heart Failure, Clots

 

 

Another almost useful study...  But they are getting better.  At least now they're conceding there's a balance between the risk of vaccine side effects vs the risk of Covid damage.  But they don't break it down by age, or underlying condition, or some other factor that makes it a good idea for people in that demographic to take the vaccine. 

 

I suspect (and that's all it is) that there's an age where the risks of getting full bore (unvaxxed) Covid is greater than the risks of getting vaccinated and hoping for a muted case of Covid.

 

It's like that "study" you posted a few weeks ago where they looked at people from 15-30 years old and their conclusion was that everyone from age 6 months and up could benefit from the vax.  Or the studies that say the average age of a Covid death is (for example) 80 years old and you parents still need to vax your toddlers, though we have no long term data on how it will affect them in the future.

 

I appreciate the updates and the studies, but I'm still waiting for the ones that will allow my 35 year old nephew to decide whether his risk from Covid is greater than his risk from vaccine caused Myocarditis.  (Or in my case, something that looks like Bell's Palsy)  The studies never seem to break it down to ages and details, and I have come to believe that's deliberate.  Because I'm sure that data's out there.  But I wonder how many years before the public get it in a useful form.

 

 

[Robert Paulson]

The covid vaccine is your one stop shop. One shot to rule them all. Get them now folks. Get it while it’s hot. 

[Amethyst]

A past has been removed for violating the forum's rules on quoting in individual posts:

 

"7. Do not quote more than three multiple nested quotes."

 

[BigBruv]

5 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Another almost useful study...  But they are getting better.  At least now they're conceding there's a balance between the risk of vaccine side effects vs the risk of Covid damage.  But they don't break it down by age, or underlying condition, or some other factor that makes it a good idea for people in that demographic to take the vaccine. 

 

 

----4 years too late for some

 

5 hours ago, impulse said:

 

I suspect (and that's all it is) that there's an age where the risks of getting full bore (unvaxxed) Covid is greater than the risks of getting vaccinated and hoping for a muted case of Covid.

 

Fair enough but that would ruin the one size fits all marketing campaigns / messages and would also affect

profit margins.

 

Don't forget, the companies involved have been successfully prosecuted for fraudulent claims before

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements 

It's a risk worth taking though as the profits are HUGE

 

5 hours ago, impulse said:

 

It's like that "study" you posted a few weeks ago where they looked at people from 15-30 years old and their conclusion was that everyone from age 6 months and up could benefit from the vax.  Or the studies that say the average age of a Covid death is (for example) 80 years old and you parents still need to vax your toddlers, though we have no long term data on how it will affect them in the future.

 

I appreciate the updates and the studies, but I'm still waiting for the ones that will allow my 35 year old nephew to decide whether his risk from Covid is greater than his risk from vaccine caused Myocarditis.  (Or in my case, something that looks like Bell's Palsy)  The studies never seem to break it down to ages and details, and I have come to believe that's deliberate.  Because I'm sure that data's out there.  But I wonder how many years before the public get it in a useful form.

 

 

 

If your nephew has avoided the needle for 4 years he's probably a smart lad.

 

The fact that you got bells palsy probably helped him make up his mind tbh but might have been another rare coincidence

 

 

[Danderman123]

21 hours ago, save the frogs said:

This is complete nonsense

If you are going to criticize a peer reviewed study, unless you can criticize their methodology, you have nothing to say.

[Amethyst]

Two posts unrelated to the topic of this thread have been removed, along with a post with an unsourced claim.

 

 

[cmjl]

 

Has there been any studies done since we started being vaccinated on the cause of death due to heart attacks,especially in previously fit,healthy individuals - I suspect not.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I suspect so:

 

Heart problems from vaccines are extremely rare. Heart problems from COVID itself are not

"The truth is that COVID infections are quite dangerous to the human heart. A study last year by the Department of Veterans Affairs found that people reinfected with COVID were twice as likely to either die or have a heart attack as people only infected once. Similarly, a different study last year from the scientific journal Immunology revealed that the SARS-CoV-2 virus (which causes COVID) damages cardiac muscle."

...

By contrast, the 2022 CMAJ study cited by conspiracy theorists who insist myocarditis is a common side effect of the vaccine ignore that it also clearly says "although observed rates of myocarditis were higher than expected, the benefits of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in reducing the severity of COVID, hospital admission and deaths far outweigh the risk of developing myocarditis." (Emphasis added.

 

https://www.salon.com/2023/07/27/heart-problems-from-vaccines-are-extremely-rare-heart-problems-from-itself-are-not/

 

AND

‘Died suddenly’ posts twist tragedies to push vaccine lies

February 5, 2023

 

"Rigorous study and real-world evidence from hundreds of millions of administered shots prove that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. Deaths caused by vaccination are extremely rare and the risks associated with not getting vaccinated are far higher than the risks of vaccination. But that hasn’t stopped conspiracy theorists from lobbing a variety of untrue accusations at the vaccines."

...

An AP review of more than 100 tweets from the account in December and January found that claims about the cases being vaccine related were largely unsubstantiated and, in some cases, contradicted by public information. Some of the people featured died of genetic disorders, drug overdoses, flu complications or suicide. One died in a surfing accident.

 

https://apnews.com/article/vaccine-died-suddenly-misinformation-a8e3a80a015ba9bf78b6bd4f3c271f58