And also shingles. Which is fucking terrible, and anyone born in the 80s or earlier is at risk for.
Get this vaccine as soon as you can. Pay out of pocket if you have to.
Does anyone know if this is effective if you’ve had chickenpox? Like the virus is already sitting in me.
Article doesn’t mention.
If you’ve had chicken pox you should get the shingles vaccine.
I think that’s what you are asking.
It is. Thanks.
Oh? But why?
Several trials are under way that could provide more definitive evidence. The scientists are also investigating why the vaccine may help to protect cardiovascular health. One possibility is that shingles may increase the risk of heart and vascular diseases, and so the more effective vaccine reduces this risk. Alternatively, the vaccine could be having broader effects on the immune system that suppress inflammatory proteins.
Dr Hugo Pedder, a research fellow in statistical modelling at the University of Bristol who was not involved in the research, said: “A randomised trial would be the best way to confidently answer whether recombinant vaccines do provide the benefits seen here versus live vaccines, but until such a trial is done this study provides some of the best-quality observational evidence supporting an effect of recombinant v live vaccines for cardiovascular outcomes.”
OK, so they don’t really know. At least they are pretty upfront about saying so.
Still, a pretty cool discovery.
Either way, get the shot if you’re in the age range. Shingles is no joke.
It starts at 50 and you can get shingles earlier than that. Like, at 39.9. 😔
My niece got it at 25
Oh, no argument there. I was just interested in the pathology.
Maybe people who voluntarily get the shingles vaccine are more health conscious in general.
I never previously considered getting the shingles vaccine because my mom told me that I was the only one in my family that managed not to get chicken pox as kid (I was born long after all my siblings ended up getting it and never showed signs.)
Years later when getting a job at a hospital, they went over my vaccine record (literally some dates and notes my mom had written on the back of an envelope in the early 80’s) they decided to run a titer. It came back positive. Their guess is that I had such a mild case that it wasn’t identified. Getting the vaccine is on my to do list now!
It’s part of the normal vaccine schedule in most developed countries. it’s not something that most adults actively seek out, but is simply recommended and taken as a matter of of course.
What I meant to say is that, unless you’re some kind of idiot who actively refuses it, then you’ve probably had it without realizing it. Active “health consciousness” isn’t necessarily a factor in the decision to take it, but, rather, a matter of routine.
People in precarious living situations may miss those normal health screenings and vaccinations. And neglect their health in general. So it might not be a choice of being less health conscious, as much as having other priorities.
While nothing you say is technically untrue, it conveniently and very carefully sidesteps the point I was trying to make about choice in vaccination, to wit:
The people you’re discussing aren’t missing vaccinations out of choice, but the inability to get vaccinated due to lack of access. that’s hardly the same thing. that speaks to systemic issues which create an entirely new and endemic problem: allowing diseases to spread among populations based on the “haves” and the “have nots“— medical treatment based on class (or designation based on some defined “otherism”). Or, in other words: medical fascism.
And to not forthrightly acknowledge that that is not the crux of the issue is to either be incompetently blind to it, or to be actively complicit in the enactment of it as a collaborator.
And, yes, that is an accusation.
Ooh ooh, I’m ACCUSED!
I am well aware of the fuckuppery of medical access in the world as a whole and the US in particular.
Including Trump still being alive. And having the nuclear codes despite his obvious dementia.
You made the claim that it’s people’s unhealthy CHOICES that lead to their illness and early deaths, and he’s the obvious counterargument to that.
Ooh ooh, I’m ACCUSED!
Ok, chill the fuck out. First of all, my comment was not directed at you personally, but speaking just generally— unless you happen to be one of the asshole medical professionals telling people not to get vaccinated, in which case: fuck you
I am well aware of the fuckuppery of medical access in the world as a whole and the US in particular.
Then where are we having this conversation?
You made the claim that it’s people’s unhealthy CHOICES that lead to their illness and early deaths, and he’s the obvious counterargument to that.
I also extensively discussed the issue of people‘s lack of access to vaccines and how Trump exploded the economic issue that causes this issue for now 8 million more Americans - mostly children - in the last six months alone due to recent funding cuts, but thank you very much for ignoring that fact…
Any other dumb shit you wanna blame me for that is Trump’s fault?
But heaven forefend a billionaire have to pay taxes… perish the thought!
You must be extremely confused to even think I might be antivax.
Or pro-billionaire,
Or unaware that EVERYTHING is Trump’s fault
(Goddammit, DEATH, get your shit together!)
We appear to be on the same side of every topic you’re squabbling with me about, so I can only conclude there’s some confusion in the thread and you’re attributing comments to me I didn’t make.
I’d say getting sick increases your risk of a stroke or heart attack in general, but I would also expect that to be the first thing that’s checked.
According to the article, it was the first thing they checked.
But, apparently, there were also additional benefits for those who simply didn’t get shingles which remain unexplained.
That’s the interesting part
Also possibly protective against dementia https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/08/260823015013.htm I wonder if there’s some latent activity by the virus that’s being blocked or just a general enhancement of some kind. In any event a study with a large sample size more than 500,000 people.
www.theguardian.com Shingles vaccine linked to lower risk of heart attack and stroke, study finds Hannah Devlin 4 - 5 minutes
The current shingles vaccine appears to significantly lower the risk of heart attack and stroke, according to scientists who say it could help prevent thousands of deaths each year.
The research, based on records of 70,000 people in the US, found that those who had received Shingrix had a 12% lower risk of a cardiovascular diagnosis in the following three and a half years. If confirmed, this benefit would be comparable to taking a daily blood pressure-lowering medication, the scientists said.
Dr Maxime Taquet, a clinical lecturer at the University of Oxford, who led the study, said: “If confirmed in clinical trials, vaccinating older adults against shingles could prevent hundreds of thousands of coronary heart diseases, strokes and cases of heart failure worldwide, making it one of the most impactful interventions we could offer to protect both the brain and the heart in later life. The effect might be enormous.”
Shingles is a painful and serious condition caused by reactivation of the chickenpox virus, which remains dormant in the body after an earlier infection. It can cause a rash and nerve pain that may persist for months or years after the rash clears, a complication known as post-herpetic neuralgia.
The first vaccine against shingles, Zostavax, was made available in 2006 and was based on a weakened version of the chickenpox virus. This was succeeded by a more effective vaccine, Shingrix, which uses newer vaccine technology and which in the UK is being made available incrementally to people aged 65-79 in a phased rollout.
Several previous studies have suggested that vaccinated people may have a lower risk of cardiovascular disease. However, these studies compared vaccinated and unvaccinated people, leaving the results open to distortion. The new study got around this by comparing the incidence of cardiovascular disease in people who were vaccinated before and after the rapid switch from Zostavax to Shingrix in the US in 2017.
The researchers tracked health records of 70,000 adults aged 60 and over for seven years after vaccination, which involved an initial dose and a booster. Shingrix was associated with a 12% reduction in cardiovascular events – including heart attacks, heart failure and stroke – in the first three and a half years after vaccination. By the end of the follow-up, the vaccine was associated with a 4% lower risk of cardiovascular diseases, according to the study in Nature Medicine.
While this represents a small change in absolute risk, the overall impact could be substantial given that heart disease and stroke are leading causes of death. “If confirmed in a [randomised controlled trial], the effect of Shingrix would be equivalent to antihypertensives,” Taquet said.
Several trials are under way that could provide more definitive evidence. The scientists are also investigating why the vaccine may help to protect cardiovascular health. One possibility is that shingles may increase the risk of heart and vascular diseases, and so the more effective vaccine reduces this risk. Alternatively, the vaccine could be having broader effects on the immune system that suppress inflammatory proteins.
Dr Hugo Pedder, a research fellow in statistical modelling at the University of Bristol who was not involved in the research, said: “A randomised trial would be the best way to confidently answer whether recombinant vaccines do provide the benefits seen here versus live vaccines, but until such a trial is done this study provides some of the best-quality observational evidence supporting an effect of recombinant v live vaccines for cardiovascular outcomes.”
