27 March 2021  /  Updated 17 July 2021
New evidence of car...
 
Notifications
Clear all

New evidence of cardiotoxicity of Covid vaccine

Page 1 / 2

Mike Crouch
Posts: 1
Topic starter
(@mike-crouch)
Joined: 2 weeks ago
32 Replies
ewloe
Posts: 365
(@ewloe)
Joined: 3 months ago

Well, I checked it out, it is not impossible that this topic has a grain of truth , although, I think it is irresponsible to instantly throw this idea out to the fools who would blindly accept the conclusion that there is good evidence of 'cardiotoxicity of Covid vaccine ', I urge you to exercise restraint before we condemn all vaccines, since that might cost lives , the consequences  of vaccine hesitancy (which you seem to encourage) are plain to see on the continent. So Let's prudently allow this to play out for a bit before we can make firm conclusions, time will tell.

Reply
6 Replies
jmc
 jmc
(@jmc)
Joined: 1 year ago

Posts: 580

@ewloe 

Why? Despite this being a well known adverse response from previous vaccine candidates over the decades. If very low frequency with traditional vaccine types.

Now lets look at the very high rate of all adverse responses in what is a very typical Phase I trial for a influenza mRNA vaccine.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X19305626?via%3Dihub

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03076385?term=H10N8&draw=2&rank=1

Now compare with with any of the traditional attenuated virus influenza vaccines. Even the adenovirus ones. Large numbers to choose from. Those are terrible numbers in that clinical trial. No wonder it was stopped. 

If you are wondering why this Phase I trial, and all other like it previous to 2020 was abandoned it was due to very high rates of adverse response events and the need for very strong adjuvants to get an positive immune response. 

So hardly surprising that a previously very low frequency adverse response  with traditional vaccines is now a much higher frequency adverse response with totally untested vaccines types that failed regulatory approval in the past due to their very high rates of initial adverse responses. Long term adverse response rates are unknown because long term multi-year trials were never completed.

The problem here is that western government rolled out mass usage of vaccine types that have zero track record of successful use in the past and had a long history of failure during clinical trials. But for some reason governments  refused to use traditional vaccines types which have a very long history of very low risk public health use.  Like everywhere else in the world.

This is not something like VLA2001 that the western governments is trying to force people to take. Why no emergency approval for VLA2001? After all, its just as safe as the flu shot and as about as low risk as vaccines get. And just as effective. In the real world.  Not in some drug company press release. 

Reply
ewloe
(@ewloe)
Joined: 3 months ago

Posts: 365
Posted by: @jmc

@ewloe 

Why?

Due to lack of reliability.

Concern raised by the journal :Expression of Concern: Abstract 10712: Soon after publication of the above abstract in Circulation, it was brought to the American Heart Association Committee on Scientific Sessions Program’s attention that there are potential errors in the abstract. Specifically, there are several typographical errors, there is no data in the abstract regarding myocardial T-cell infiltration, there are no statistical analyses for significance provided, and the author is not clear that only anecdotal data was used. We are publishing this Expression of Concern until a suitable correction is published to indicate that the abstract in its current version may not be reliable.

Reply
95% protected
(@95-protected)
Joined: 11 months ago

Posts: 899

@ewloe 

As well as the somewhat vague nature of the abstract and the massive conclusion jumping required for the punch-line, we need to consider the reliability of the author. Some unorthodox views.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Gundry

Some issues that might me considered.

What other things influence markers?

When do the levels subside? If they are gone after 3 months, the 5 year estimates become somewhat invalid.

 

Reply
95% protected
(@95-protected)
Joined: 11 months ago

Posts: 899

@ewloe 

I wonder if the actual paper will ever be published. If it does, perhaps they can include some units for their data. 

It is odd that an abstract would be published with so many typos and casual language and leading to so many questions about the methodology and potential confounding factors.

Reply
jmc
 jmc
(@jmc)
Joined: 1 year ago

Posts: 580

@ewloe 

You obviously have not  read much of the relevant literature then. I'd put that paper in the same category of about 80% plus of the area papers I have read over the last two decades. Might be something in it, maybe not. But as I said there is decades of papers by this stage with equivalent  adverse response events. Including many thousands in VAERS and the equivalent in the last year I'd say the paper is probably a hastily written draft of valid clinical observations. 

As you seem to be new to this medical literature lark and bios science papers in general let me explain. Like all science subject literature they fall into four categories: that sounds reasonable; there might be something in that; just anecdotes with graphs;  and complete rubbish with very basic mistakes. 

Pre 2020 the HCOV related literature was about 30% the first two categories, 60% the third and 10% the last. Usually very basic mathematical mistakes.  Since 2020 with the deluge of papers its less than 5% the first two categories, maybe 20% the third but 75% of the papers are just garbage of one sort or another usually due to very basic mathematical and domain science mistake. And I'd include the "clinical trials" of the current mRNA / adenovirus vaccines in the last category.

So it sounds like a rushed paper. So what. Its not like its describing something that is complete novel and previously unknown. Its well known in the literature. 

Reply
Jane G
(@jane-g)
Joined: 1 year ago

Posts: 266
Posted by: @ewloe

Well, I checked it out, it is not impossible that this topic has a grain of truth , although, I think it is irresponsible to instantly throw this idea out to the fools who would blindly accept the conclusion that there is good evidence of 'cardiotoxicity of Covid vaccine ', I urge you to exercise restraint before we condemn all vaccines, since that might cost lives , the consequences  of vaccine hesitancy (which you seem to encourage) are plain to see on the continent. So Let's prudently allow this to play out for a bit before we can make firm conclusions, time will tell.

 

Most of us do not condemn all vaccines: just the current crop of injected substances to the exclusion of many other useful treatments. Nor do we discourage others to take the jabs if they wish, and if it seems appropriate. 

Any objections I voice are to the coercion, compulsion and derision inflicted on those who prefer to give these things a few years to show up any long-term or cumulative adverse effects.

 

Reply
ImpObs
Posts: 44
(@impobs)
Joined: 2 weeks ago

Nice inversion of the precautionary principle!

You think it irresponsible to warn people that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle,  incase it discourages them from a medication that dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle.

Stronk logic lol

Reply
12 Replies
ewloe
(@ewloe)
Joined: 3 months ago

Posts: 365
Posted by: @impobs

Nice inversion of the precautionary principle!

 

I think this deserves   an official response fron the JCVI and the MHRA. There may be some truth in it. Dr Gundry is not an impeccable  source, so we'll see where this goes.

 

 

Reply
THE REAL NORMAL PODCAST
(@the-real-normal-podcast)
Joined: 1 year ago

Posts: 13

@ewloe is commenting on this site a full time job for you Ewloe? Seem to be here all the time. At all times of day and night.

Reply
ImpObs
(@impobs)
Joined: 2 weeks ago

Posts: 44

@the-real-normal-podcast 

You raise an interesting observation, I've yet to see this entity post anything useful, let alone anything of substance, and I've only been here 5 mins.

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2017/08/21/the-gentlepersons-guide-to-forum-spies/

Reply
95% protected
(@95-protected)
Joined: 11 months ago

Posts: 899
Posted by: @the-real-normal-podcast

@ewloe is commenting on this site a full time job for you Ewloe? Seem to be here all the time. At all times of day and night.

Yes ewloe,  the people don't like it when you make them look foolish.

They prefer to deal with their own kind, who reinforce the madness.

Reply
THE REAL NORMAL PODCAST
(@the-real-normal-podcast)
Joined: 1 year ago

Posts: 13

@willing-vaccinee Not at all. I'm a firm believer that we need to hear all sides of the story and I'm happy to debate/chat things over with anyone. But for these debates and chats to bear fruit we need a few things.

1. Respect

2. Evidence to back up any opinions.

3. Not just lone opinions and hyperbole.

Reply
95% protected
(@95-protected)
Joined: 11 months ago

Posts: 899
Posted by: @the-real-normal-podcast

@willing-vaccinee Not at all. I'm a firm believer that we need to hear all sides of the story and I'm happy to debate/chat things over with anyone. But for these debates and chats to bear fruit we need a few things.

1. Respect

2. Evidence to back up any opinions.

3. Not just lone opinions and hyperbole.

Do you apply that to people on your side as well?

I will look out for your posts advising the anti-vaxxers of the same rules.

Reply
95% protected
(@95-protected)
Joined: 11 months ago

Posts: 899
Posted by: @impobs

Nice inversion of the precautionary principle!

You think it irresponsible to warn people that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle,  incase it discourages them from a medication that dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle.

Stronk logic lol

You missed out the phrase "extremely rarely"

Reply
ImpObs
(@impobs)
Joined: 2 weeks ago

Posts: 44

@willing-vaccinee 

Thats because the study didn't say "extremely rarely" at all, anywhere in it, you just made that up in your deluded mind.

What it did say was

dramatic changes in the PULS score became apparent in most patients

 "in most patients" in no way equates to "exteremely rarely" unless it's read by a deluded fool, like you.

Reply
95% protected
(@95-protected)
Joined: 11 months ago

Posts: 899
Posted by: @impobs

@willing-vaccinee 

Thats because the study didn't say "extremely rarely" at all, anywhere in it, you just made that up in your deluded mind.

What it did say was

dramatic changes in the PULS score became apparent in most patients

 "in most patients" in no way equates to "exteremely rarely" unless it's read by a deluded fool, like you.

There are lots of questions raised by this abstract.

Why was is so badly written, that obvious typos were published?

"MOST patients" : how many is that?

Where is the data?

Where is the distribution across age, sex, fitness levels?

How long does the effect last?

Where is the consideration of confounding factors?

How was the data processed?

How was bias avoided? For example are inconvenient measurements ignored?

 

Reply
ewloe
(@ewloe)
Joined: 3 months ago

Posts: 365
Posted by: @impobs

Nice inversion of the precautionary principle!

You think it irresponsible

yes since the abstract gives  no data regarding myocardial T-cell infiltration, there are no statistical analyses for significance, and the author does not make it  clear that only anecdotal data was used. It is irresponsible to stir up a panic based on such shoddy work, and you are a mug for trying to.

 

Reply
ImpObs
(@impobs)
Joined: 2 weeks ago

Posts: 44

@ewloe you don't understand biology, you don't understand the paper, and you clearly don't understand the Expression of Concern either.

The PLUS Cardiac Test measure a bunch of stuff which serves as a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue. You can call this "anecdotal" if you like, but anyone with a modicum of biology education at even A level standard would know this is a ridiculous claim.

tell me how they'd actually measure T-cells in the epithelium and cardiac tissue without using markers/corrolates einstien.

Reply
ewloe
(@ewloe)
Joined: 3 months ago

Posts: 365
Posted by: @impobs

@ewloe you don't understand biology, you don't understand the paper,

I understand when a journal feels obliged  to express concernd about an abstract, saying it won't be published until the author corrects it.

Reply
Nobody
Posts: 676
(@nobody)
Joined: 1 year ago

Sherrif Tiraspol winger Adama Traore goes down clutching his chest in Real Madrid defeat | Daily Mail Online

Second footballer in a week.  The "safe and effective" vaccines with "extremely rare" adverse events appear to be working their magic.

 

 

Reply
Nobody
Posts: 676
(@nobody)
Joined: 1 year ago

Scientists reject pundits' vaccine 'theory' after three footballers collapse in a week (yahoo.com)

What could cause three footballers in a week to collapse?  A few weeks ago there were three others across Europe.  What possibly could cause this?

 

 

 

Reply
1 Reply
ewloe
(@ewloe)
Joined: 3 months ago

Posts: 365

@nobody 

could it be random?

This is worth looking into, here's a list of all association football to die on the field of play, by year, not collapse but die , there must be many more collapses than deaths.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_association_footballers_who_died_while_playing

A glance tells me 1 died in 1889, 1 in 1892, 2 in 1893, and so it continues a few per year until we find

 

7 in 2000, 5 in 2002, …. and so on. 

6 in 2006, 5 in 2007, 8 in 2009, 11 in2010,

10 in 2012,5 in 2014

10 in 2015

13 in 2016

11 un 2017

10 in 2018

10 in 2019

3 in 2020

14 in 2021 so far, in 11 month.

So yes, 2021 is a bad year, but not much worse than 2016, or 2017 before  covid19 vaccination was possible as a cause.

 

Reply
Page 1 / 2
Share: