Long-term Cardiovascular Risks After Covid-19 Infection Study Unveils Troubling Findings

[Social Media]

 

A new study suggests that Covid-19 could significantly raise the risk of heart attacks, strokes, and death for up to three years after infection. This alarming discovery was published in *Atherosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology* and draws on medical data from the UK Biobank, one of the largest health databases globally.

 

The study analyzed over 250,000 people, of which 11,000 tested positive for Covid-19 in 2020. Nearly 3,000 of these individuals had been hospitalized due to severe infections. The researchers compared these groups with over 222,000 people who had no history of Covid-19 during the same time period.

 

The results were striking. Individuals who contracted Covid-19 in 2020, before vaccines were available, were found to have twice the risk of experiencing a major cardiac event, such as a heart attack, stroke, or death, compared to those who were not infected. For those who had been hospitalized due to Covid, the risk of a serious heart event was more than three times higher.

 

Dr. Stanley Hazen, one of the study's authors and chair of Cardiovascular & Metabolic Sciences at the Cleveland Clinic, remarked on the severity of the findings. "There’s no sign of attenuation of that risk," Hazen said, adding that this persistence of risk is unique to Covid-19. Other infections like influenza generally raise heart attack risks but only for a brief time after recovery. In contrast, Covid-19 appears to have long-lasting cardiovascular consequences.

 

Dr. Patricia Best, a cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic, also emphasized the study's implications. "This is just such a large effect, and I think it’s just because of how different Covid is than some of the other infections," Best said, highlighting how the virus continues to affect the heart and blood vessels long after the initial infection subsides.

 

One of the study's key findings was the role of blood type in these risks. Individuals with non-O blood types—A, B, or AB—were found to be at higher risk of heart attacks and strokes after a Covid-19 infection. While people with O-type blood appeared somewhat more protected, they still faced an elevated risk. The exact reasons for these differences remain unclear, but researchers believe that the gene linked to blood type may influence cardiovascular outcomes after a Covid-19 infection.

 

The researchers also looked at whether pre-existing genetic risks for heart disease made people more vulnerable to heart attacks or strokes after contracting Covid-19. Surprisingly, they found no clear link between genetic predisposition and post-Covid heart issues. However, one encouraging finding was that patients who were hospitalized with Covid and were taking low-dose aspirin had a reduced risk of experiencing a heart attack or stroke. This suggests that there are ways to mitigate some of the cardiovascular dangers posed by the virus.

 

Earlier studies have shown that Covid-19 can infect the endothelial cells lining the blood vessels, which may lead to inflammation and the formation of dangerous plaques in the arteries. These plaques can rupture and trigger heart attacks or strokes, which could explain the long-term cardiovascular risks associated with the virus. "There might just be something that Covid does to the artery walls and the vascular system that is sustained damage and just continues to manifest over time," explained Dr. Hooman Allayee, a professor at the Keck School of Medicine, USC.

 

The study did not examine the impact of Covid-19 vaccinations on cardiovascular risk, but Hazen speculated that vaccines likely provide protection by preventing severe infections. Nor did the study delve into whether repeated Covid infections would increase the risks even further, though some emerging research has suggested that this may be the case.

 

Hazen emphasized the importance of managing cardiovascular risk for those who have had Covid-19, particularly those hospitalized with the virus. "If you’ve had Covid, we have to be especially attentive to making sure that we’re doing everything possible to lower your cardiovascular risk," he said. This includes controlling blood pressure, cholesterol, and considering daily aspirin use, depending on individual health circumstances.

 

While Covid-19's full impact on long-term health is still being unraveled, this study underscores the importance of ongoing vigilance, especially for those who experienced severe illness during the pandemic. Hazen’s advice is clear: anyone who has been hospitalized with Covid-19 should take special care of their heart health, regardless of their vaccination status.

 

Based on a report from CNN 2024-10-11

 

 

 

[Red Phoenix]

"The study did not examine the impact of Covid-19 vaccinations on cardiovascular risk, but Hazen speculated that vaccines likely provide protection by preventing severe infections."  

Yep, this says it all. They have all the data but did choose NOT to look at that factor.  Anything but the vaccine...  One can only guess why < sarcasm alert >.

Trash study....

 

Edited October 10 by Red Phoenix

[rabas]

On 10/11/2024 at 6:33 AM, Red Phoenix said:

"The study did not examine the impact of Covid-19 vaccinations on cardiovascular risk, but Hazen speculated that vaccines likely provide protection by preventing severe infections."  

Yep, this says it all. They have all the data but did choose NOT to look at that factor.  Anything but the vaccine...  One can only guess why < sarcasm alert >.

Trash study....

 

 

Holly Molly!  You didn't even read the abstract!  From the abstract:

 

"Data from the UK Biobank was used to identify COVID-19 cases (n=10 005) who were positive for polymerase chain reaction (PCR+)-based tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=8062) or received hospital-based International Classification of Diseases version-10 (ICD-10) codes for COVID-19 (n=1943) between February 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020. "

 

There were no vaccines!

 

And then you call the study trash... 

[rabas]

Many studies hove found similar results. COVID is a nasty virus, this was known from the beginning. Here's one. He addresses the vaccine issue in posts below.   [Link to paper in Nature] 

 

"the increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis reported in this study is significant in people who were not vaccinated and is EVIDENT REGARDLESS of vaccination status." I.e. vax status doesn't matter for that.

 

 

Edited October 12 by rabas

[Red Phoenix]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

 

Holly Molly!  You didn't even read the abstract!  From the abstract:

 

"Data from the UK Biobank was used to identify COVID-19 cases (n=10 005) who were positive for polymerase chain reaction (PCR+)-based tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=8062) or received hospital-based International Classification of Diseases version-10 (ICD-10) codes for COVID-19 (n=1943) between February 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020. "

 

There were no vaccines!

 

And then you call the study trash... 

 

Holly Folly!  I was referring to the conclusions from this study.

The authors state: Proportional hazard models were used to evaluate COVID-19 for association with long-term (>1000 days) risk of MACE and as a coronary artery disease risk equivalent.

Yes, the selection of the 2 populations (those that were hospitalized with COVID, versus those that did not catch COVID) was done in the period just before the roll-out of the jabs.  They used the unreliable PCR-test for that assertion, but ala...

But then the authors use a model to look at long-term (> 2 years and 7 months) cardiovascular risks. 

And instead of "speculating that vaccines likely provide protection by preventing severe infections", why did they not take that possible factor of single/multiple COVID vaccination by both populations during the >1000 days period in consideration? 

[Danderman123]

On 10/11/2024 at 6:33 AM, Red Phoenix said:

"The study did not examine the impact of Covid-19 vaccinations on cardiovascular risk, but Hazen speculated that vaccines likely provide protection by preventing severe infections."  

Yep, this says it all. They have all the data but did choose NOT to look at that factor.  Anything but the vaccine...  One can only guess why < sarcasm alert >.

Trash study....

 

Many of the subjects were infected by COVID before the vaccines were available.

[Danderman123]

COVID generates inflammation, some in nasty places.

 

If doctors had known this in 2020, a lot of people may not have died.

 

That's why there is a scientific method, to learn by research. As opposed to the Trumper method of just making stuff up.

[Red Phoenix]

7 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Many of the subjects were infected by COVID before the vaccines were available.

> What;s your point? 

That was exactly why the authors of that 'study' selected 2 large and distinctly different groups of people.  Those who were hospitalized with COVID, and those that did not catch COVID in that 10 month period right before the vaccine roll-out. 

Then they followed up for 1000 days to 'prove' that a COVID-19 infection can result in long-term cardiovascular risks. 

But although the data was available, the authors did NOT take into account whether the people in both groups during that 1000 day follow-up were vaccinated. 

> I call this a trash study as the researchers are trying to gaslight us that the rise in cardiovascular harms is almost entirely due to having got a covid-infection earlier (like almost everybody did) without taking the effect of the covid-jabs in consideration.

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

> What;s your point? 

That was exactly why the authors of that 'study' selected 2 large and distinctly different groups of people.  Those who were hospitalized with COVID, and those that did not catch COVID in that 10 month period right before the vaccine roll-out. 

Then they followed up for 1000 days to 'prove' that a COVID-19 infection can result in long-term cardiovascular risks. 

But although the data was available, the authors did NOT take into account whether the people in both groups during that 1000 day follow-up were vaccinated. 

> I call this a trash study as the researchers are trying to gaslight us that the rise in cardiovascular harms is almost entirely due to having got a covid-infection earlier (like almost everybody did) without taking the effect of the covid-jabs in consideration.

You seem disconnected from reality.

 

People who never were infected by COVID (the control group) generally don't have these long term symptoms, even if they were vaccinated.

[Red Phoenix]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

You seem disconnected from reality.

 

People who never were infected by COVID (the control group) generally don't have these long term symptoms, even if they were vaccinated.

Hahaha, a 'factual' claim with nothing, zero, zilch to back it up. 

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

Hahaha, a 'factual' claim with nothing, zero, zilch to back it up. 

Only clinical studies.

 

Do you have any peer-reviewed studies demonstrating linkage between long term COVID symptoms and vaccination?

[owl sees all]

22 hours ago, rabas said:

Many studies hove found similar results. COVID is a nasty virus, this was known from the beginning. Here's one. He addresses the vaccine issue in posts below.

I do not agree with this paragraph one little bit. There are a number of points, that not only don't I agree with, but I consider very much to be unproven.

 

Is 'COVID' actually anything other than a computer generated string of data? Upon which, everything else seems to hang. IMO, entities, that white-coats call viruses, are/were created in petri dishes, and then without any isolation whatsoever, characterised and sequenced by computer programmess.

 

Electron microscopy shows cell and tissue debris that has been labeled 'viruses'. At the present time, these entities or viruses are indistinguishable form other cell debris.

 

Cells decay and die continually in out bodies. They are replaced by new. And guess where they come from? Our bodies manufacture and grow them.

 

Now a couple of points. IMO, a virus aids the elimination of the unwanted cells from the body. Without viruses, the elimination of decaying and dead tissue, might not be so easily done.  Can a virus live in a healthy cell. or are they only evident when the cell decays and dies?  And could it be that the dreaded virus, during its life-span, is actually an important factor of good health?

 

The above post is my opinion. Albeit built on years of research. Members are encouraged to do their own, and find their own truths.

 

Edited October 13 by owl sees all