Posted on 10/01/2023 3:40:44 PM PDT by Enterprise
The study included 303 nonvaccinated patients (mean age, 52.9 years; 157 females) and 700 vaccinated patients (mean age, 56.8 years; 344 females). Vaccinated patients had overall higher myocardial FDG uptake compared to nonvaccinated patients (median SUVmax, 4.8 vs median SUVmax, 3.3 ; P < .0001). Myocardial SUVmax was higher in vaccinated patients regardless of sex (median range, 4.7-4.9 ) or patient age (median range, 4.7-5.6) compared to corresponding nonvaccinated groups (sex median range, 3.2-3.9; age median range, 3.3-3.3; P range, <.001-.015). Furthermore, increased myocardial FDG uptake was observed in patients imaged 1-30, 31-60, 61-120, and 121-180 days after their second vaccination (median SUVmax range, 4.6-5.1) and increased ipsilateral axillary uptake was observed in patients imaged 1-30, 31-60, 61-120 days after their 2nd vaccination (median SUVmax range, 1.5-2.0) compared to the nonvaccinated patients (P range, <.001-<.001).
This was not supposed to happen! The COVID vaccine is not supposed to affect the heart in any way. It was promised to “stay in the arm.”
The explosive findings of the study are discussed in the editorial that the editor of the magazine, Dr. Bluemke, felt obliged to publish.
(Excerpt) Read more at igor-chudov.com ...
They sure did.
Where are the ones pushing it here again?
NOT counting on it though. 😳
There are many peer reviewed studies showing that it does, can you show me that it does not, or are you just spreading disinformation?
Only from “trusted” CDC/FDA/FRAUDci approved sites/links ;-)
We are living in a computer simulation. There can be no doubt.
I wonder. We hear personal stories of individuals who had gone into cancer remission for an extended period of time (years), only to find the cancers have come raging back, and in some cases worse than before. Each and every one of them was convinced to take the vaccine because they were “at risk”. At risk of what, living too long?!
My last blood test they tested for B-Natriuretic Peptide (BNP).....This blood test measures the levels of a protein called BNP in your bloodstream. When your heart has to work harder to pump blood, it makes more BNP. Higher levels of BNP can be a sign of heart failure....all is ok...I had the first two jabs but no more for me.
How do the Russians plan to beat the test for 18Fluorine-fluorodeoxyglucose?
From the article: "Scientists measured myocardial 18Fluorine-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) uptake. F-FDG has molecular similarity to glucose. However, 18F-FDG does not metabolize like glucose. Therefore, PET scans could detect it, and its presence shows the heart muscle’s abnormally high demand for glucose, indicative of abnormal cardiac function."
“Does this include the J&J non-mRNA version?”
Very good question.
Covid ‘vaccine’ PING
So, who here is sufficiently frightened by some fear-monger's interpretation of this study? Has anyone actually read it who is able to interpret it?
This study is only a retroactive examination of medical records. In addition, while over 9,000 records were originally identified, only 1,003 records were actually used. Furthermore, they were only comparing differences in cardiac uptake of a radioactive marker between vaccinated and non-vaccinated subjects. They did not include patients with a recent history of Covid disease, which would have helped put the observations into context. Myocarditis is most often caused by the immune system response to infection.
It is interesting to read David Bluemke's editorial about this paper. Nowhere does he claim that this study shows that myocarditis following vaccination is more of a danger than Covid disease which results in physical tissue damage and, sometimes, death. On the contrary, he notes many limitations of this study. He wrote, "Unfortunately, in routine clinical practice, F18-FDG PET/CT is a terrible tracer to evaluate myocardial inflammation...Routine PET/CT cannot reliably identify higher activity due to inflammation on an already high background of normal myocardium." He notes the limited number of samples in the patient population. He later states "These results are compelling, but we should remain suspicious without further analysis. There are simply too many things that can still go wrong with this comparison...SUV values are quantitative and useful, but metabolic derangements might also cause the same differences. In short, other differences besides vaccination could be responsible for differences between the two patient groups." He goes on to discuss other limitations of this study and then points out that even its authors recognize that it is just a starting point. The bottom line is that it cannot be used to assess vaccine safety.
Of course professional antivaxxers love to scare people with highly technical scientific papers that they do not and cannot understand. There is a reason those professional antivaxxers do not try to advance their antivax narrative among real scientists. That's because we (real scientists) are able to read and interpret the actual science.
“Professional” $hot $hills strike, again.
🙃
I had F18-FDG injected into me about a week ago for an all body PET scan. The problem is that the resolution was not super high.
It still made a large tumor in my lung glow like a spotlight. Also my kidneys and bladder as it was passing through me.
I had the J&J vaccine and it damn near killed me. Just had my first EKG after the vaccine and it showed an abnormal T-wave that was not there previously. T-wave is the repolarization period in the ventrical. I looked at the actual results and it was an inverted T-wave. Everyone, including my surgeon and anesthesiologist for an upcoming lung lobectomy said, ignore it.
“Unfortunately, in routine clinical practice, F18-FDG PET/CT is a terrible tracer to evaluate myocardial inflammation...Routine PET/CT cannot reliably identify higher activity due to inflammation on an already high background of normal myocardium.”
Totally agree.
I just saw that article. I hope they are wrong, but I feat they are not.
I’m not a doctor but I did sleep at a holiday inn express last night.
It is my understanding that if the only reason that you got the vaxx was so that you could go on a cruise then your only susceptibility to heart damage was while on that cruise.
To the best of my knowledge the vaxx hasn’t harmed my heart.
.
.
Maybe if I were vaccinated it would be a different story.
The J&J is just as much an mRNA vaccine as the others. In fact, it actually does more monkeying with cell genetic machinery in that it actually inserts altered DNA into the nucleus (using an engineered adenovirus) rather than just inserting mRNA into the protoplasm like the others do. The altered DNA then fools the cell into creating altered mRNA and from that point on it works just like the other vaccines.
The only vaccine that doesn’t involve mRNA is Novovax. Novovax is still kind of creepy, though, in that it uses moth cells in a lab to produce the virus proteins which are then injected into you. But it’s the most similar to a traditional vaccine in that it doesn’t hijack your cells to produce the virus proteins.
Scientists measured myocardial 18Fluorine-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) uptake. F-FDG has molecular similarity to glucose. However, 18F-FDG does not metabolize like glucose. Therefore, PET scans could detect it, and its presence shows the heart muscle's abnormally high demand for glucose, indicative of abnormal cardiac function.
Conclusions: Focal myocardial 18F-FDG uptake seen on oncologic PET/CT indicates a significantly increased risk for multiple myocardial abnormalities.
Indeed, this is what the Nakahara study finds:
Results
....Vaccinated patients had overall higher myocardial FDG uptake compared to nonvaccinated patients (median SUVmax, 4.8 vs median SUVmax, 3.3 ; P < .0001). Myocardial SUVmax was higher in vaccinated patients regardless of sex (median range, 4.7-4.9 ) or patient age (median range, 4.7-5.6) compared to corresponding nonvaccinated groups (sex median range, 3.2-3.9; age median range, 3.3-3.3; P range, <.001-.015).
Furthermore, increased myocardial FDG uptake was observed in patients imaged 1-30, 31-60, 61-120, and 121-180 days after their second vaccination (median SUVmax range, 4.6-5.1) and increased ipsilateral axillary uptake was observed in patients imaged 1-30, 31-60, 61-120 days after their 2nd vaccination (median SUVmax range, 1.5-2.0) compared to the nonvaccinated patients (P range, <.001-<.001).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.