That is confusing. How can they assert a five year increase in ACS risk if the changes persist at least 2.5 months post vac #2? The last sentence suggests the elevated risk is short term and diminishes.
How to interpret these findings?
RE: How to interpret these findings?
Here is a probably better explanation:
The risk of developing acute coronary syndrome (ACS) significantly increased in patients after receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, according to a report presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2021, held from November 13 to 15, 2021.
The study included 566 men and women (1:1) aged 28-97 years, who were patients in a preventive cardiology practice. All patients received a new PULS Cardiac Test 2-10 weeks after their second COVID-19 vaccine. This test result was compared with a PULS score from 3-5 months prevaccination.
The PULS Cardiac Test measures multiple protein biomarkers, including hepatocyte growth factor [HGF], soluble Fas, and IL-16, and uses the results to calculate a 5-year risk score for new ACS. The PULS score increases with above-normal elevation. All participants received this test every 3-6 months for 8 years.
From prevaccination to postvaccination, the levels of IL-16 increased from 35=/-20 to 82=/-75 above the norm. Soluble Fas showed an increase from 22±15 to 46=/-24 above the norm.
HGF rose from 42±12 to 86±31 above the norm. As a result, the 5-year ACS PULS risk score increased from 11% to 25%. By the time the report was published, changes had persisted for 2.5 months or more after the second vaccine dose.
maybe..single historic PULS scores are used to predict future events. They took these particular PULS scores and plugged it into the predictor matrix. It may be that the accuracy of PULS score predictions are varied depending on the reason why the PULS score increases. I would believe that this type of information would have been generated in the five years or so that it normally takes to develop an acceptably safe vaccine.