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

New evidence of cardiotoxicity of Covid vaccine

Page 2 / 2

ImpObs
Posts: 44
(@impobs)
Joined: 2 months ago

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

https://portlandpress.com/clinsci/article/doi/10.1042/CS20210735/230273/The-SARS-CoV-2-Spike-protein-disrupts-human

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.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-major-downstream-targets-of-ERK1-2-in-the-MAPK-pathway-ERK-regulates-both-cytosolic_fig1_323220502

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZyBUmuIQP4

Reply
1 Reply
ewloe
(@ewloe)
Joined: 5 months ago

Posts: 420

@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.

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

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.

Reply
2 Replies
TTT
 TTT
(@ttt)
Joined: 1 year ago

Posts: 960
Posted by: @impobs

. 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.

Reply
ewloe
(@ewloe)
Joined: 5 months ago

Posts: 420
Posted by: @impobs

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.

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

"compulsive stalking" you replied to every post I've made on here. In fact the only people who have replied to 99% of my posts on here are you and your narcissistic tag team buddy.

Reply
2 Replies
TTT
 TTT
(@ttt)
Joined: 1 year ago

Posts: 960
Posted by: @impobs

"compulsive stalking" you replied to every post I've made on here. In fact the only people who have replied to 99% of my posts on here are you and your narcissistic tag team buddy.

why would you say narcissistic?

Are you qualified to make this diagnosis?

Reply
ewloe
(@ewloe)
Joined: 5 months ago

Posts: 420
Posted by: @willing-vaccinee
Posted by: @impobs

"compulsive stalking" you replied to every post I've made on here. In fact the only people who have replied to 99% of my posts on here are you and your narcissistic tag team buddy.

why would you say narcissistic?

Are you qualified to make this diagnosis?

it is the only big word he can spell.

Reply
Nobody
Posts: 795
(@nobody)
Joined: 1 year ago
Reply
Page 2 / 2
Share: