A Case Report: Multifocal Necrotizing Encephalitis and Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination against COVID-19

Part of Twitter went once again going into nonsense mode with this case report.

A case report is the writing of observations of, usually, a single or very few patients. That is the case here too, a 76 year old man with Parkinson's disease. It was peer-reviewed, although the question is whether that was done well: the reviewers had no substantive comments, which is strange.

You may also wonder how objective the editor and reviewers (MDPI) were since this "article" is part of a requested series that specifically aims to highlight vaccine side effects. Nothing wrong with doing that, but this is prone to abuse in the current circumstances.

Now, nothing specific has been found regarding the patient's death. However, he was vaccinated 3x, as you would expect at that age and with the importance of doing so. The writer, a single author of this work, makes a very strong conclusion, without any additional data or substantiation, indicating that he is not very objective:

To call the vaccines a "gene-based vaccine" is another red flag. This is also evident in the introduction, where typical antivax claims and suggestions are repeated regarding speed of development and testing. There are also no other studies by this author. The article describes some findings that fit the age of the man and the disease he was suffering from: Parkinson's disease; such as inflammation in the blood vessels, arteriosclerosis (age) and brain (disease). The writer claims this must be the vaccine; without evidence or other data. The patient died of a myocardial infarction, causing additional damage, including broken ribs from resuscitation.
​
Spike protein is said to be detected, after 3 weeks of vax, in blood vessels from figure 9. Only in blood vessels, not in brain tissue, and heart. This is a surprise.
This is a surprise because it has been previously tried to detect Spike by many, and with very sensitive tests. This was observed, in very low, yet detectable concentrations, 2 days after vaccination. Except, of course, where parts of Spike protein should be; very special cells in the lymph nodes called fDC.

It is possible that this patient with many underlying conditions responded poorly to the vaccine: but this article does not show that. It is clear that this patient is not characteristic of the majority of the population. This is, at best, an exception. The method of Spike detection is not strong, and based on 1 technique, not standardly used in this way. As the writer also points out, this needs at least a second, unrelated, method. This was is not done. However, the author goes out of his way to correlate vaccination with symptoms. This is not scientific and, even if there was a connection, does a huge disservice to others who do have vaccine side effects.