February 7, 2023 - 10:30am
There has been no increase in cardiac arrests or deaths among young athletes since the Covid-19 pandemic, a leading sports cardiologist has claimed.
Jonathan Drezner is Director of the University of Washington’s medicine center for sports cardiology, team physician for the NFL team Seattle Seahawks and head of the Cardiac Injury in Sport division of the National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research. Last week on a popular podcast called The Real Science of Sport he told the audience quite categorically that, having reviewed the evidence, there has not been any uptick in athletes suffering from cardiac arrest or myocarditis related to either Covid-19 or the vaccine.
Myocarditis has long been a leading cause of sudden death in competitive athletes. It is a condition that causes inflammation of the heart muscle, which in turn can develop into an abnormal heart rhythm (or arrhythmia). During the early period of the pandemic, there was a higher-than-expected prevalence of myocarditis among hospitalised Covid-19 patients, which raised questions about the safety of athletes who were returning to play after catching the virus; meanwhile vaccine-sceptic observers claimed that many more athletes than normal were mysteriously dying of heart injury. The issue came to the fore when high profile sports stars, including Danish footballer Christian Eriksen in 2021 and NFL player Damar Hamlin this year, collapsed on the pitch from heart-related issues.
“In our young athletes, the prevalence of cardiac involvement from a viral syndrome was really, really low,” Dr Drezner said. “We’re not having an epidemic of cardiac arrests for Covid or the vaccine”.
We got in touch to find out what evidence he is basing his assertion on. Dr Drezner told UnHerd that the Cardiac Injury in Sport division of the National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research, which he heads, has been monitoring cardiac arrests among athletes across the US for 20 years. Prior to the pandemic, they conducted several studies into the incidence of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA), finding that the proportion of SCA from myocarditis in competitive US athletes ranged from 4-9%. Drezner now says that, in as-yet unpublished research with the NCCSIR, there is no change from this figure pre and post-pandemic. He expects the research to be published this summer.
Full comments from the podcast appearance below:
I work with the National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research. We monitor all cardiac arrests and deaths among all athletes across the US for 20 years. We have not seen any increase in the rate of cardiac arrests or deaths through the Covid-19 pandemic. There’s no higher rates of myocarditis related to either the virus or the vaccine. Data that suggests otherwise is faulty and largely misinformation.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeTalk to the life insurance companies which are experiencing an unexpectedly high number of claims in relatively young age groups.
And the coroners.
Edward Dowd has just written a book on this, “Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Death” with a thorough review of various data sets heavily detailed in the appendices. I would like to hear him debate Dr Drezner.
Unless one can point out any detail then such a statement is merely hearsay.
Life insurance is not a product that is typically bought by the young. Is the subset of young people who have taken out life insurance representative of the whole population of young people?
Life insurance in USA it is provided by employers, so most working people have it.
Life insurance in USA it is provided by employers, so most working people have it.
And the coroners.
Edward Dowd has just written a book on this, “Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Death” with a thorough review of various data sets heavily detailed in the appendices. I would like to hear him debate Dr Drezner.
Unless one can point out any detail then such a statement is merely hearsay.
Life insurance is not a product that is typically bought by the young. Is the subset of young people who have taken out life insurance representative of the whole population of young people?
Talk to the life insurance companies which are experiencing an unexpectedly high number of claims in relatively young age groups.
Is this doctor claiming no increase in cardiac deaths in NFL athletes or no increase at all? I have read that cardiovascular disease deaths have increased in all age groups over the past few months [hense the increase in so-called “excess deaths”] in much of the “anglosphere” and Europe. Am I mistaken?
It appears you are mistaken, or indeed misled. There are many complex reasons for excess deaths and certainly no evidence of a direct correlation with cardiovascular diseases.
Robbie, serious question:
There were 80% more cardiac deaths in the vaccine arm of Pfizer’s trial than in the placebo arm.
I happen to know that because due diligence is a part of my job, so when a novel modality was proposed to be given to billions of people I was pretty impressed by this, and knowing a bit about it, I then read up on the companies and modality to learn a lot more. Further to that, I read the study data for myself, when it came out in late 2020. The Pfizer trial data was published in NEJM in Dec ’20 in the form of a Summary Report (written by the ‘Sponsors’ aka Pfizer’s chosen people) + the Appendix (which contains the actual data tables, sans the marketing spin). Both are still online, at NEJM’s website.
Now, since we know the trial cohort was younger and healthier than the population cohort the product was rolled out to, the adverse event rates should actually be higher than those recorded in the trial, Otherwise we need to answer the questions: Is this the same formulation? …and if it is, where did these adverse events go? — what is the mechanism by which they spontaneously self-resolved?
In Pfizer’s trial the AE (adverse event) rate was over 70%. That means that more than 7/10 participants in the trial experienced an adverse event. 5% experienced an SAE (serious adverse event), which means serious enough to require medical care / hospitalisation, and / or something causing lasting (not temporary) harm. So, where have these AEs all gone?
The answer seems obvious, no? …unless we believe in magic, the answer is that in the trials (with younger, healthier folks) they were doing ‘active surveillance’. But post-rollout we are doing only ‘passive surveillance’. And the signal has been lost. The signal is there, but we aren’t seeing it because we aren’t looking.
Take for example the cardiac harms: Currently various doctors are bickering as to whether there are / aren’t cardiac harms based on observational papers, or certain real world datasets (all of which have a number of confounders). Why would we be doing that, when we have Level 1 evidence — the highest form of evidence — the RCT’s (randomised controlled trials)? …we know the cardiac risk uplift. It was 80%.
Since 2021 and the Texas court case (vs FDA) we now also know that these harms were specifically highlighted by Pfizer in their pharmacovigilance report as something that required priority active surveillance monitoring. Yet FDA never told doctors that, let alone patients. No wonder we are confused about the link, the signal has been lost, as physicians are not aware that they should have been reporting these effects; they didn’t even know they could be linked.
Robbie, serious question:
There were 80% more cardiac deaths in the vaccine arm of Pfizer’s trial than in the placebo arm.
I happen to know that because due diligence is a part of my job, so when a novel modality was proposed to be given to billions of people I was pretty impressed by this, and knowing a bit about it, I then read up on the companies and modality to learn a lot more. Further to that, I read the study data for myself, when it came out in late 2020. The Pfizer trial data was published in NEJM in Dec ’20 in the form of a Summary Report (written by the ‘Sponsors’ aka Pfizer’s chosen people) + the Appendix (which contains the actual data tables, sans the marketing spin). Both are still online, at NEJM’s website.
Now, since we know the trial cohort was younger and healthier than the population cohort the product was rolled out to, the adverse event rates should actually be higher than those recorded in the trial, Otherwise we need to answer the questions: Is this the same formulation? …and if it is, where did these adverse events go? — what is the mechanism by which they spontaneously self-resolved?
In Pfizer’s trial the AE (adverse event) rate was over 70%. That means that more than 7/10 participants in the trial experienced an adverse event. 5% experienced an SAE (serious adverse event), which means serious enough to require medical care / hospitalisation, and / or something causing lasting (not temporary) harm. So, where have these AEs all gone?
The answer seems obvious, no? …unless we believe in magic, the answer is that in the trials (with younger, healthier folks) they were doing ‘active surveillance’. But post-rollout we are doing only ‘passive surveillance’. And the signal has been lost. The signal is there, but we aren’t seeing it because we aren’t looking.
Take for example the cardiac harms: Currently various doctors are bickering as to whether there are / aren’t cardiac harms based on observational papers, or certain real world datasets (all of which have a number of confounders). Why would we be doing that, when we have Level 1 evidence — the highest form of evidence — the RCT’s (randomised controlled trials)? …we know the cardiac risk uplift. It was 80%.
Since 2021 and the Texas court case (vs FDA) we now also know that these harms were specifically highlighted by Pfizer in their pharmacovigilance report as something that required priority active surveillance monitoring. Yet FDA never told doctors that, let alone patients. No wonder we are confused about the link, the signal has been lost, as physicians are not aware that they should have been reporting these effects; they didn’t even know they could be linked.
I think he’s claiming no increase in heart attacks (not necessarily deaths) among American competitive athletes, which presumably is limited to those at the professional and university level? Either way, not a big enough group to affect population-level stats. Surprised to hear an athlete’s risk of cardiac arrest is as high as 4-9% in any given pre-Covid year – possibly related to steroid use?
Re the population-level increases in cardiac problems, I understand that’s defiitely happening but far more likely to be a consequence of lockdowns (more isolation/alcohol/takeaways, less exercise and contact with medical professionals) than the jabs. There was a good video on here with a prominent actuary a few months ago actually – his argument was that there’s a clear increase, but the timings don’t match periods of intense vaccination and there’s no known mechanism by which a vaccination could cause cardiac issues 6-12 months after being provided, rather than at the time (which it also did, in small but noticeable numbers), especially not on the scale that’s observed. He put it down to lockdowns creating more cases, and causing them to be undetected for longer so less amenable to treatment. Seems plausible to me.
“Surprised to hear an athlete’s risk of cardiac arrest is as high as 4-9% in any given pre-Covid year – possibly related to steroid use?”
I too am surprised – amazed would be a better word. I looked into the link provided in the article and this is in the first paragraph:
“There were 4,242,519 athlete-years (AY) and 514 total student athlete deaths. Accidents were the most common cause of death (257, 50%, 1:16 508 AY) followed by medical causes (147, 29%, 1:28 861 AY). The most common medical cause of death was SCD (79, 15%, 1:53 703 AY).”
So the chance of a professional athlete dying of sudden cardiac death in any one year is 79 / 4,242,519 or 0.0019%. This is admittedly a subset of all sporting groups because it’s college athletes not all athletes, but the percentage looks a little more plausible.
“Surprised to hear an athlete’s risk of cardiac arrest is as high as 4-9% in any given pre-Covid year – possibly related to steroid use?”
I too am surprised – amazed would be a better word. I looked into the link provided in the article and this is in the first paragraph:
“There were 4,242,519 athlete-years (AY) and 514 total student athlete deaths. Accidents were the most common cause of death (257, 50%, 1:16 508 AY) followed by medical causes (147, 29%, 1:28 861 AY). The most common medical cause of death was SCD (79, 15%, 1:53 703 AY).”
So the chance of a professional athlete dying of sudden cardiac death in any one year is 79 / 4,242,519 or 0.0019%. This is admittedly a subset of all sporting groups because it’s college athletes not all athletes, but the percentage looks a little more plausible.
It appears you are mistaken, or indeed misled. There are many complex reasons for excess deaths and certainly no evidence of a direct correlation with cardiovascular diseases.
I think he’s claiming no increase in heart attacks (not necessarily deaths) among American competitive athletes, which presumably is limited to those at the professional and university level? Either way, not a big enough group to affect population-level stats. Surprised to hear an athlete’s risk of cardiac arrest is as high as 4-9% in any given pre-Covid year – possibly related to steroid use?
Re the population-level increases in cardiac problems, I understand that’s defiitely happening but far more likely to be a consequence of lockdowns (more isolation/alcohol/takeaways, less exercise and contact with medical professionals) than the jabs. There was a good video on here with a prominent actuary a few months ago actually – his argument was that there’s a clear increase, but the timings don’t match periods of intense vaccination and there’s no known mechanism by which a vaccination could cause cardiac issues 6-12 months after being provided, rather than at the time (which it also did, in small but noticeable numbers), especially not on the scale that’s observed. He put it down to lockdowns creating more cases, and causing them to be undetected for longer so less amenable to treatment. Seems plausible to me.
Is this doctor claiming no increase in cardiac deaths in NFL athletes or no increase at all? I have read that cardiovascular disease deaths have increased in all age groups over the past few months [hense the increase in so-called “excess deaths”] in much of the “anglosphere” and Europe. Am I mistaken?
A) There has been no increase in myocarditis related to the virus or the vaccin;
or
B) There has been no increase in the total amount of myocarditis among athletes relative to previous years of total cases.
Unfortunately, one side effect of the establishment going bonkers and losing credibility is that it’s well within the realms of possibility that cases are made in bad faith. And since case A) is what any establishment still bankering on that vaccines are 100% effective and have no side effects would claim it would be preferable if case B) could be stated forthrightly, without any additions of “…related to the Covid19 virus or vaccine.”
A) There has been no increase in myocarditis related to the virus or the vaccin;
or
B) There has been no increase in the total amount of myocarditis among athletes relative to previous years of total cases.
Unfortunately, one side effect of the establishment going bonkers and losing credibility is that it’s well within the realms of possibility that cases are made in bad faith. And since case A) is what any establishment still bankering on that vaccines are 100% effective and have no side effects would claim it would be preferable if case B) could be stated forthrightly, without any additions of “…related to the Covid19 virus or vaccine.”
Indeed that maybe the case, but as team physician for a 4.5 billion worth NFL team, this promulgation is to be expected.
As the NFL Mandated the mRNA shot we know there is no conflict of interest in these findings.
As the NFL Mandated the mRNA shot we know there is no conflict of interest in these findings.
Indeed that maybe the case, but as team physician for a 4.5 billion worth NFL team, this promulgation is to be expected.
Does he he give public access to the raw data or is it only for him to see?
The 40% increase in cardiac deaths is Normal, it happens every year and has for decades. His paper proves this. Unfortunately the data is locked for the next 50 years, but will be available in 2073.
The 40% increase in cardiac deaths is Normal, it happens every year and has for decades. His paper proves this. Unfortunately the data is locked for the next 50 years, but will be available in 2073.
Does he he give public access to the raw data or is it only for him to see?
Not what the EU data points to, and why is he not providing any facts, the statistical 5 year average pre pandemic Vs post pandemic. Naturally I am far more aware visually from what I have seen. I have never personally seen so many athletes impacted on the world stage, so I cannot believe this to be true.
Gibberish.
Exactly what I would expect from the lunatic anti vax crowd.
Name which ones have been affected
Gibberish.
Exactly what I would expect from the lunatic anti vax crowd.
Name which ones have been affected
Not what the EU data points to, and why is he not providing any facts, the statistical 5 year average pre pandemic Vs post pandemic. Naturally I am far more aware visually from what I have seen. I have never personally seen so many athletes impacted on the world stage, so I cannot believe this to be true.
I don’t believe him. The unpublished research sounds like cobblers.
Is that your scientific opinion?
What exactly are your qualifications on the subject, other than being a blowhard conspiracy theorist?
Is that your scientific opinion?
What exactly are your qualifications on the subject, other than being a blowhard conspiracy theorist?
I don’t believe him. The unpublished research sounds like cobblers.
Wasn’t actually in doubt. I suspect the report will just bounce off certain people however, post modern cynicism has reached saturation online.
Definitely true that post modern cynicism has increased substantially. I look back to an earlier time and remember viewing all the “news” as America prepared to invade Viet Nam. In those days, we believed in Walter Cronkite and all the rest of the talking heads on the screen. We believed in the honesty of our leaders, and it never seemed that jiggery pokery was driving their positions.
Now we clearly know (well, a few of us do) that the news has always been special pleading, reflecting what authorities want us to believe. Sometimes they lie outright (yellow cake, WMD’s), to achieve their ends. At other times they share official narratives that lack context, or that mistake “effects” for “causes.” Omission or marginalization of a point of view has the same impact on audiences as does the outright lie.
Increasingly, the map that we are shown by our leaders and servile media has little to do with the actual territory. And this is the most serious danger to the world today. Recently we have experienced a “science” that cherry picks facts, and today we have utter silence on the real causes for the Ukraine conflict. Alternative views–whether on Covid policy or Ukraine are condemned, shamed or canceled outright.
So while I agree with your statement, I am compelled to declare that the increase in post modern sceptisicm is a very desirable thing. It is long overdue.
I’ll certainly agree that scepticism and debate is always welcome, I do hope it can be contained to a valid level of integrity and logic without the hysterics often witnessed.
Well said. Most people have abandoned Kant’s injunction “dare to think” in preference for an easy life. That way lies totalitarianism.
I’ll certainly agree that scepticism and debate is always welcome, I do hope it can be contained to a valid level of integrity and logic without the hysterics often witnessed.
Well said. Most people have abandoned Kant’s injunction “dare to think” in preference for an easy life. That way lies totalitarianism.
Definitely true that post modern cynicism has increased substantially. I look back to an earlier time and remember viewing all the “news” as America prepared to invade Viet Nam. In those days, we believed in Walter Cronkite and all the rest of the talking heads on the screen. We believed in the honesty of our leaders, and it never seemed that jiggery pokery was driving their positions.
Now we clearly know (well, a few of us do) that the news has always been special pleading, reflecting what authorities want us to believe. Sometimes they lie outright (yellow cake, WMD’s), to achieve their ends. At other times they share official narratives that lack context, or that mistake “effects” for “causes.” Omission or marginalization of a point of view has the same impact on audiences as does the outright lie.
Increasingly, the map that we are shown by our leaders and servile media has little to do with the actual territory. And this is the most serious danger to the world today. Recently we have experienced a “science” that cherry picks facts, and today we have utter silence on the real causes for the Ukraine conflict. Alternative views–whether on Covid policy or Ukraine are condemned, shamed or canceled outright.
So while I agree with your statement, I am compelled to declare that the increase in post modern sceptisicm is a very desirable thing. It is long overdue.
Wasn’t actually in doubt. I suspect the report will just bounce off certain people however, post modern cynicism has reached saturation online.
Ok I’m no medical expert, but I am a uk football follower. In all my 40+ years of attending matches and watching football on TV, I have NEVER known a season like the 2021/2022 season. The number of matches delayed or stopped because someone had collapsed on the field or in the crowd was unprecedented. I’m not the only one who has noticed this: Ask Matt Le Tissier. The really odd thing is why no-one will undertake an investigation to find out why?
Ok I’m no medical expert, but I am a uk football follower. In all my 40+ years of attending matches and watching football on TV, I have NEVER known a season like the 2021/2022 season. The number of matches delayed or stopped because someone had collapsed on the field or in the crowd was unprecedented. I’m not the only one who has noticed this: Ask Matt Le Tissier. The really odd thing is why no-one will undertake an investigation to find out why?
Who saw Tucker Carlson’s talk about this couple wks back?
Utter twaddle. He referenced study undertaken by ‘Good Sciencing’ – yep alarm bell ringing already from a name like that. You couldn’t make it up could you.
Their research referred to huge jump in sudden death in athletes. Baseline comparison was a proper study in 2019 with 29 deaths and Good Sciencing’s subsequent study showing 1500+ wasn’t a study at all but a trawl of media stories. Pele was down listed pro sportsman with sudden death. Now forgive me but wasn’t Pele in his 80s when he died of cancer?
Point being this is a national news channel with a big following and reach. It used utter cobblers to make it’s contention. But it’s get away with it because it plays perfectly to sectional confirmatory bias.
Advice – always be sceptical until there is proper peer reviewed science of a high calibre. It’s the peer review bits one really wants to read. That is good science testing itself.
Pfizer’s *own trial* had 80% more cardiac deaths in the vaccine arm of the trial than in the placebo arm.
I do not understand this level of extreme denialism.
It’s one thing to say “Fox News are probably exaggerating!” …yeah for sure, I bet they are. But when the manufacturer’s own RCT had such a strong cardiac safety signal, who cares what Fox thinks?
Are you suggesting the manufacturer’s rigged their own trials …to make themselves look bad? – it just doesn’t make any sense.
The more likely scenario is that the RCT’s showed such a strong safety signal around cardiac harm because their product causes a notable degree of cardiac harm. And in the rollout, that harm is being seen (as expected). Yet health bodies are gaslighting the public about whether it’s even real, despite knowing what the trials showed, which causes conspiracy chatter and other out-there reactions.
We shouldn’t be surprised by the cardiac events & deaths; the trials told us this would happen. But the lying and obfuscation by public health bodies is creating an environment of confusion and conspiracist thinking, because the public can see some of the [expected] adverse events, and the public health bodies are saying “you are imagining it”. No, they are not.
Pfizer’s *own trial* had 80% more cardiac deaths in the vaccine arm of the trial than in the placebo arm.
I do not understand this level of extreme denialism.
It’s one thing to say “Fox News are probably exaggerating!” …yeah for sure, I bet they are. But when the manufacturer’s own RCT had such a strong cardiac safety signal, who cares what Fox thinks?
Are you suggesting the manufacturer’s rigged their own trials …to make themselves look bad? – it just doesn’t make any sense.
The more likely scenario is that the RCT’s showed such a strong safety signal around cardiac harm because their product causes a notable degree of cardiac harm. And in the rollout, that harm is being seen (as expected). Yet health bodies are gaslighting the public about whether it’s even real, despite knowing what the trials showed, which causes conspiracy chatter and other out-there reactions.
We shouldn’t be surprised by the cardiac events & deaths; the trials told us this would happen. But the lying and obfuscation by public health bodies is creating an environment of confusion and conspiracist thinking, because the public can see some of the [expected] adverse events, and the public health bodies are saying “you are imagining it”. No, they are not.
Who saw Tucker Carlson’s talk about this couple wks back?
Utter twaddle. He referenced study undertaken by ‘Good Sciencing’ – yep alarm bell ringing already from a name like that. You couldn’t make it up could you.
Their research referred to huge jump in sudden death in athletes. Baseline comparison was a proper study in 2019 with 29 deaths and Good Sciencing’s subsequent study showing 1500+ wasn’t a study at all but a trawl of media stories. Pele was down listed pro sportsman with sudden death. Now forgive me but wasn’t Pele in his 80s when he died of cancer?
Point being this is a national news channel with a big following and reach. It used utter cobblers to make it’s contention. But it’s get away with it because it plays perfectly to sectional confirmatory bias.
Advice – always be sceptical until there is proper peer reviewed science of a high calibre. It’s the peer review bits one really wants to read. That is good science testing itself.