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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
@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.
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/
@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.
@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.
@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.
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"
@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.
@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?
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.
@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.
@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.
More studies comming out regarding the OP paper.
The SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein disrupts human cardiac pericytes function through CD147-receptor-mediated signalling: a potential non-infective mechanism of COVID-19 microvascular disease
SARS-CoV-2 deregulates the vascular and immune functions of brain pericytes via Spike protein
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8590447/
Relevant: The ERK Cascade
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC3128630/
Relevant: The major downstream targets of ERK1/2 in the MAPK pathway. ERK regulates both cytosolic targets and nuclear transcription factors, thus promoting proliferation, survival and other malignant phenotypes.
OP paper in one post for ref: Abstract 10712: mRNA COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712
Dr Mobeen Syed Discusses these papers and the implications, although the subject is complex the lecture is presented in a format accessible to a lay audience. Part 1 (25 mins) Here:
SARS-COV-2 Spike Damages Heart Tissue and Vessels (IN-VITRO Study from UK)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u3AYK808pw
Part 2 (28mins) Here:
@impobs good it is correct to corroborate Gundry's idea, since the abstract 10712 was concerning to the journal where it first appeared. It is correct to look at all the trade-offs of using versus or not using vaccines. The jury is still out, but due process is underway, this is possibly not merely mischief by a bunch of ignorant anti-vaxxers.
The journal was concerned enough to publish it.
This is how science works, it's a bunch of published dots people get to join up to forward science, slating the quality of one particular dot with relevant data and punctuating it with invective doesn't achieve anything useful, it says more about the detractor (you in this case) than the data. Try to be more respectful and drop the invective and you may be able to muster something constructive and less distractive.
Science often raises more questions than it answers, there was an interesting thread being discussed on twitter that was very relevant in this area too, but it got deleted and the two research scientists banned because it brought up prion disease mechanisms, it's getting to the point where we can't even discuss science without clueless idiots on some sort of invective cusade cancelling the adults.
. Try to be more respectful and drop the invective and you may be able to muster something constructive and less distractive.
Go and have a look at your own posts and see if you pass your own test.
The journal was concerned enough to publish it.....
with a warning that the abstract in its current version may not be reliable.
Perhaps you prefer unreliable information, since that matches everything else you say.
btw: you have to stop this compulsive stalking, only time will tell if the journal ever stands by Gundry, so far it has not done so, instead it has expressed concern that his claims may be unreliable.
