We certainly have learned a lot since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Along with a heightened awareness about the spread of communicable diseases, COVID-19 proved how important it is to actively maintain both mental and physical health. Our collective experience forced us to recognize the fragility of our lives, our friendships, and family connections. In this post-pandemic era, it remains crucial that we apply what we’ve learned to avoid repeating mistakes as well as continue to give thoughtful care to those who are still suffering with the adverse effects.
Sadly, many of those adverse effects come from our healthcare system’s synthetic attempt to solve a complex, novel problem with a simple solution: the COVID m-RNA “vaccines.” Today, questions remain regarding the efficacy and side effects of their continued use. Thus, I persistently follow current research on the topic in order to advise and treat my patients from the point of view of individualized, whole body wellness.
NOTE: I use the term vaccine here because that is what our healthcare system has called it. However, it does not meet the long-accepted definition, which, prior to this new technology, included the words “produce immunity.” Approved for the first time ever and only for use on an emergency basis in response to the COVID pandemic, history has shown that the COVID-19 m-RNA “vaccine” clearly does not make one immune to the disease. Meanwhile, given the profound effect of the original, immunity-producing vaccines on public health, watering down the definition in order to include this less effective tool can have severe implications. Thus the quotes around “vaccine” in the details that follow.
MYOCARDITIS AFTER COVID m-RNA INJECTIONS
In my clinical experience, one of the bodily systems most affected by the COVID-19 m-RNA “vaccines” has been the cardiovascular (CV) system. You’ve likely heard the term myocarditis, which is a noninfectious condition causing the muscle of the heart to become inflamed. While still relatively rare, myocarditis is now a well-known side effect.
The primary cause of the myocarditis side effect is a systemic inflammatory response, specifically affecting the CV system. Many of us also recall the terms “cytokine response” or “cytokine cascade” that was bandied about after the “vaccine” came on the market. These two terms indicate a significant inflammatory response, which sometimes occurred following the use of this type of “vaccine.” Although the condition can resolve over a period of time, on occasion it can progress and become more serious.
Understanding what causes this side effect of the m-RNA “vaccine” is very important, especially because the pharmaceutical industry is working hard on other forms of m-RNA infectious disease and cancer treatments. Just recently, the FDA turned down a request from Moderna to approve an m-RNA flu “vaccine.”
The COVID-19 m-RNA “vaccine” itself is novel in the way it affects the body on a genetic level. You see, m-RNA is genetic material that exists in our cells and aids in producing specific proteins that are used for a variety of purposes. One is to create antibodies against an invading antigen such as a specific virus, bacterium, or parasite. This is how our bodies naturally work in response to an invading pathogen.
Before we get any farther into this discussion, we should gain some perspective. First, I would like to make a few things perfectly clear. The cases of myocarditis that are related back to the COVID-19 “vaccine” likely may not be a complete accounting of all the “vaccine”-related myocarditis cases (i.e., those that were identified as being caused specifically by the “vaccine”). That is, in fact, due to several factors, which include the proximity of the onset of symptoms to the injection date. The symptoms often do not begin until some time after the injection. Therefore, the individual or the treating physician may not have related the onset of myocarditis to the “vaccine.”
Further, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is far from infallible. VAERS is the national system for patients and physicians to report any adverse events which may be related to a vaccine. However, patients may not report the adverse event to their physician. Or the physician may not relate the symptom to the vaccine and therefore not report it to VAERS. VAERS statistics show that for every one million doses of COVID-19 mRNA “vaccine” administered, approximately 30 cases of myocarditis will be reported, however the incidence rate is likely much higher for these and other reasons.
I treated a patient early on following the outset of the pandemic with what appeared at the time to be a COVID-19 “vaccine”-related case of myocarditis. With the use of lifestyle modification and specific nutritional support we were able to resolve the condition. To do this, I used the information that was at hand at the time about this form of myocarditis.
NEW INFORMATION
Five years on, as a result of a recent study, we may be uncovering the immune factors that become elevated during this “vaccine”-related myocardial event, which may perhaps lead to methods for treatment and prevention.
The study was published in December 2025 in the Journal of Science Translational Medicine. The senior author is the director of the Stanford Cardiovascular Institute. He and his team instituted the study using heart cell clusters called cardiac spheroids, which were used as models of the heart’s response to vaccination.
These researchers used cytokines as indicators of the level of inflammation in the heart. Cytokines are proteins produced by the body which in turn affect the immune system. Two specific cytokines were found to be more elevated in COVID-19 “vaccine”-related myocarditis patients. So, the researchers focused on the elevation of these two proteins as early indicators of the onset of myocarditis.
The study revealed that the onset is more common after the administration of a second dose of the mRNA “vaccine.” They also found that, for some unknown reason, the incidence rate is higher in males than in females. This is especially true in males under 30 years of age. For them, the incidence rate doubles to 60 cases per million.
Incidentally, the young man that I treated for this condition was under 30.
To determine why the incidence of the condition was greater in males than in females, the researchers evaluated whether higher levels of estrogen, which has been demonstrated to have protective properties for the heart, could be the reason. To do this they used estradiol, one form of human estrogen, and genistein, a plant-based and a weaker form of estrogen.
As I mentioned, the researchers focused their attention on the two forms of cytokines that have been found to be in the highest concentrations in patients in the days after this “vaccine” was administered.
They also found that both of these forms of cytokines were more highly elevated in those injected with the COVID-19 mRNA “vaccine” than in the control group. Also, when the heart cell clusters and cardiac spheroids were exposed to peak concentrations of these two cytokines (which were also found in subjects suffering from myocarditis), they noted impaired contractility and an increase in arrhythmia-like events. They also noted an upregulation of inflammatory genes. When these cytokines were neutralized, the “vaccine”-induced cardiac stress was reduced.
Furthermore, giving oral genistein one week before the second injection reduced the surge of cytokines as well as the resultant heart muscle injury in young male mice.
Thus, the authors’ findings implicated the two forms of cytokines as the main drivers of the myocardial damage.
CONCLUSIONS
This study raises some interesting considerations for us to ponder. While it is far from conclusive about why myocarditis is the result of this novel “vaccine,” which, as I mentioned at the outset of this article had never been approved for use prior to the COVID pandemic, it does beg further questions. It is my belief that, until we understand more about this never used form of genetically mediated vaccine (including all of the secondary effects that have resulted from its use as well as the drivers of these effects) we should put the brakes on all further use.
So, in some respects, the jury is still out. We need to remain vigilant and keep learning to fully understand both the potential benefits as well as the potential risks before it is used in other forms of vaccine. And as always, we need to constantly take care of our mental and physical health so that our minds and our bodies are prepared to handle whatever it is life throws at us next.
Thank you for studying and learning!
Dr. Pfeiffer