Okay, so, we have

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978 which didn't do before/after testing, and had no symptoms of injury aside from high cardiac Troponin T after vaccination, did the study on employees but used patients as their matched controls (bad idea--hospital employees generally have abnormally high stress and poor sleep compared to the general population, and the job can be very physically demanding at times), and the high levels stayed high for a full month afterwards; they did drop a little bit, which is more or less what you'd expect from regression to the mean. They also used an unusually low threshold. So the study design is poor in multiple ways, and even if it were truly caused by the vaccine, they show no evidence that it's at all worrying (except that in ~3% of women it might make it hard to detect an actual cardiac event).

Oh, and here's a study showing that sleep deprivation and exercise raise troponin T: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8885606/. Not making this stuff up.

The other paper listed is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9538001/ (which is posted twice) is actually properly designed; it finds one man with very elevated troponin levels who went up even higher after the vaccine and then came back down somewhat; and one woman (out of 192) who genuinely seems to have had some sort of cardiac insult (~0.5% rate) because her baseline rate was low and symptoms consistent, although EKG and such were still normal. 95% CI is very wide, and we have to consider publication bias and selection bias. Still, it's a decent caution.

And that's it.

The guy talking does the usual persuasion-over-accuracy thing.

Anyway, I'm all for better studies of less severe health impacts of all kinds of things, vaccines included. Follow-up is key for that. But these two studies aren't much more than a "Hm, should look into this more."