An interview with my pediatric cardiologist husband, Kirk Milhoan, MD, PhD, FAAP, FACC
Doctors and scientists are struggling with terminology related to the covid-19 “vaccinations.” Using the term “vaccine” implies the traditional vaccine mechanism of action, where an antigen is introduced to which the body produces a desired antibody response. All four of the currently available covid-19 “vaccines” (Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson, and Astra-Zeneca) involve the injection of genetic material which results in the cells of the body producing a protein to which the body then produces antibodies. We believe that use of the traditional terminology causes misunderstanding. Given their entirely different mechanism of action and thus different risk profile from traditional vaccines, the covid-19 “vaccination” products will be referred to with quotation marks in this essay.
Dr. Kirk Milhoan’s biography can be found here.
What patients have you recently personally cared for with manifestations likely related to the covid-19 “vaccinations”?
A 14-year-old previously healthy male, 1 day after second vaccination, presented with severe bradycardia (heart rate under 60). His heart rate was in the 20s. He required overnight intensive care unit (ICU) admission for observation. (Another author’s note: as an anesthesiologist, the most common manifestation I observe in the previously “vaccinated” against covid-19 is abnormal heart rhythm.)
A 15-year-old male who had covid-19 in December and two vaccinations (he didn’t recall specific timing) was admitted with severe chest pain and bradycardia (heart rate 35-50). His troponin (marker of cardiac damage, found on laboratory blood analysis) level was 22,000 on admission. EKG and echocardiogram (ultrasound of the heart) were normal. His troponin level increased to 48,000 within six hours. Cardiac MRI revealed severe segmental myocarditis.
A 25-year-old male with Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy with known mildly decreased left ventricular function presented to the emergency room within 48 hours after his booster. Within twelve hours after his booster, he went to sleep for 30 continuous hours. Echocardiogram after his hospital admission demonstrated severely decreased cardiac function. His troponin level was initially 3600, decreased to 2600, and then increased again to 2800. He required a 5-day ICU stay. Given his underlying medical condition, his prognosis is very likely poor.
What is myocarditis or pericarditis?
Understanding of terminology is useful:
“myo” refers to muscle;
“card” refers to the heart;
“peri” implies “around”;
“itis” refers to inflammation.
Myocarditis means inflammation of the heart muscle and pericarditis means inflammation of the lining around the heart.
Is there such a thing as mild myocarditis?
As cardiologists, we attempt to qualify the amount of damage to the heart muscle, so we do use descriptors such as “mild,” “moderate,” or “severe,” based on objective criteria, such as ejection fraction or size of the cardiac chambers observed on echocardiogram. For a patient or family, however, an admission to an intensive care unit with even “mild” myocarditis is not a “mild” clinical experience. Also, inflammation of the heart muscle can lead to long-term scarring, so even “mild” damage has potentially long-term implications.
Can SARS CoV-2 infection cause myocarditis or pericarditis?
The “spike protein” is a protein on the surface of the SARS CoV-2 virus that binds to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) receptors on cells throughout the body, including within the heart. The spike protein is directly and indirectly pathogenic, which means it can cause pathologic, or disease-causing, responses. It can activate platelets, initiate blood clotting, and initiate an inflammatory cascade, all of which can cause inflammation of the heart muscle or pericardium.
Who is at risk for myocarditis or pericarditis?
This is a complex question because not everyone has the same response to SARS-CoV-2 infection, but males aged 11 to 40 seem to be at the greatest risk.
Can the covid-19 “vaccines” cause myocarditis or pericarditis?
All four of the available genetic “vaccines” (Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson, and Astra-Zeneca) result in cells of the body producing a modified spike protein (since the goal is for the body to then produce antibodies to this spike protein). Since the spike protein itself is pathogenic, production of the spike protein by a person’s own cells can induce the platelet activation, blood clotting, and inflammation that all cause inflammation of the heart muscle or pericardium. Autopsy studies of deceased individuals who have received these products have verified cardiac blood clotting, inflammation, fibrosis (scarring), and cell death.
How do you know someone has heart muscle damage?
Elevated troponin levels on laboratory blood analysis imply individual cardiac muscle cell damage and/or death. Cardiac MRI studies (using gadolinium) are the most effective in demonstrating damage. Myocardial fibrosis following both SARS-CoV-2 infection and covid-19 “vaccine” administration has been demonstrated by cardiac MRI even in those without any cardiac symptoms.
Who is at risk for “vaccine”-related myocarditis or pericarditis?
Once again, those who appear to be at highest risk are males aged 11 to 40. The risk, however, appears to be dose-dependent, meaning the greater the dose of spike protein, the greater the risk. Spike protein is produced in the body longer after “vaccination” with the genetic products than after natural infection. The Moderna product contains about three times as much mRNA as the Pfizer product, so it makes sense that more cases of myocarditis have been observed after administration of the Moderna product than after administration of the Pfizer product. It also makes sense that repeated injections increase the risk. The current observed incidence of myocarditis following the injection of one of the two mRNA products (Moderna or Pfizer) in the highest risk male subgroup is between 1 in 2600 and 1 in 5000. That means that for every 2,600 to 5,000 males at highest risk who receive an injection of one of these products, one will get myocarditis.
Is the risk of myocarditis greater from SARS-CoV-2 infection than from covid-19 “vaccination”?
Since damage appears to be related to the amount of exposure to spike protein and that exposure is greater with the genetic “vaccine” products, it makes sense that we’ve observed the risk of myocarditis is greater after injection with these products than after natural infection. An Israeli population study published in April 2022 in the Journal of Clinical Medicine did not show an increased incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis in covid-19 recovered adults as compared the general population (note: the study was done before the genetic injections were introduced in this population.)
But is SARS-CoV-2 infection still risky for kids?
SARS CoV-2 infection in children is typically very mild. It presents much less risk to children, in terms of severe illness and death, than, for instance, influenza infection.
What are the long-term implications of SARS CoV-2 infection- or “vaccine”-related myocarditis?
We do not have any long-term studies. We can look at other inflammatory processes that affect the heart, like Kawasaki Disease (a disease that affects the arteries of the heart), for clues. In this disease, children who appear, by echocardiogram, to have complete resolution of inflammation of their coronary arteries still have abnormal coronary arteries when tested as adults. It makes sense that these patients will need to be followed by a cardiologist for the rest of their lives.
Are these genetic “vaccines” as safe as previous non-genetic vaccines?
There are many known problems with the passive Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting system (VAERS). It’s important to know that it is a federal offense to make a false report to this system. It’s also important to know that vaccine adverse events are likely highly underreported to this system. Despite that fact, there have been vastly more reports to VAERS since the introduction of these new products than the previous 30 years combined for all vaccines. A good resource can be found at https://openvaers.com/.
Should these genetic “vaccines” be taken off the market?
The last pediatric vaccine that was pulled from the market for safety concerns was RotaShield, developed for protection against rotavirus. The FDA removed its approval in 1999 after only 92 reported cases of intussusception (telescoping of the small intestine), none of which caused death. That incidence of intussusception was between 1 in 4,300 and 1 in 9,000, less than the current incidence of “vaccine”-related myocarditis, a complication that has caused death. If we were to treat these genetic “vaccines” as we have treated other vaccines, they long ago met an adverse safety signal that historically would have caused their removal from the market.
Why aren’t more pediatricians talking about this?
That answer is multifactorial. Pediatricians, in general, are very pro-vaccine. We have trusted the regulatory bodies to remove them from the market if they are unsafe. These new products use an entirely different and new mechanism of action than traditional vaccines, but use of traditional terminology has resulted in the traditional trust in them, and the regulatory bodies governing them, by both pediatricians and the public. If pediatricians voice concern about these new products, they risk being labeled “anti-vax,” which most are not, or they risk being accused of spreading misinformation, which threatens their reputation, license, and profession. Some of the pediatricians who have spoken out have had their message censored. The longer we use these products, however, the more side effects we are witnessing. I’m hopeful more pediatricians will start expressing appropriate concern and that message will be heard by the public.
Do you have any studies to support the information you are sharing?
An incredibly detailed 80-page document listing peer-reviewed medical studies on “vaccine”-related adverse events can be found here: