Major medical journal slams the jab. It must be stopped.

originally posted by: joejack1949
a reply to: anonentity

Firstly, I wanted to scold you for linking a terrible blog post that doesn't even link the study. Are you getting paid to promote such garbage?

Anyway - onto the article:

These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac.

Big unanswered question: does the ACS risk return to the baseline after 2.5 months? If the 5 year ACS score returns to normal within a couple months, does that mean the risk becomes negligible?

Other unanswered question: What happens to these metrics for a person who becomes infected with COVID-19? Or what about a person who was vaccinated and then becomes infected?

Interesting article either way, but needs more research before I (personally) would be alarmed.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
may want to hold your scorn. And by all means, take your argument up with the peer reviewed article.

a reply to: network dude

and that's why you are the awsomeist. (my grandson taught me that word)
Very well done.

Awwwww.... shucks!

And thanks.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: marg6043
Even with all the evidence on the jab, you still do not see any of this big pharms working on a reliable and more stable jab the old fashion way, you know why? because it was never about the darn virus.

More and more the real truth behind this jabs is coming to light.

Novavax but someone is trying to block it
www.msn.com...

It seems a safer alternative imho

that's a real kick in the teeth. Volunteer for a trial, "given reassurances that I would not be disadvantaged in anyway at a later date." and then treated like an unvaxxed heathen and offered no choice to participate in society. I can't help but think when enough folks have had enough of this, there will be blood.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: putnam6
All the numbers are off, how is it lower vaccinated southern states are still showing fewer cases per million than more vaccinated regions elsewhere

Good question. And I would imagine there are various factors and circumstances that would be significant both alone and in combination with other factors.

One factor is that we should probably expect fewer cases in warm, sunny southern states than the colder and darker northern states, simply because warmth and sunlight are both natural enemies of all viruses. Even with lower vaccination rates and fewer Covid mandates like masks and social distancing. People also tend to spend more time outside in warmer southern states because they have more opportunity to do so comfortably and enjoyably.

But that is only one factor among many. Unfortunately, no one seems interested or compelled to find out why with proper studies and analyses.

Of course, it's more than one factor and that's why worldwide and national mandates don't work, mandates and restrictions need to be done at a state and even local level. Hell if we would have locked down tight as Australia did here in Georgia we would have gone bankrupt and there would be riots.

As far seasonally you mean like the seasonal flu, just remember this the world freaked because we were lead to believe we were going to have 5.0 or higher transmission rates consistently and for long periods so far looking at these totals going back to April 2020 only 2-3 counties or municipalities ever have transmission rates over 3.0 and that usually fades over a 2-4 week period.

How is France skyrocketing? almost double the transmission rate of the much more relaxed US, pretty sure seasonally we are parallel with France?

Besides much of South America looks to be doing better or as well as Australia, pretty sure they are both in the southern hemisphere

a reply to: putnam6

Of course, it's more than one factor...

So we agree.

and that's why worldwide and national mandates don't work...

We agree again.

As far seasonally you mean like the seasonal flu, just remember this the world freaked because we were lead to believe...

I don't know that "the world" freaked so much as the "leaders" freaked (or pretended to) and a few mini-tyrants have jumped on their bandwagon.

How is France skyrocketing?

Good question.

...almost double the transmission rate of the much more relaxed US, pretty sure seasonally we are parallel with France?

Sure, there are similarities and comparisons to be made in climate. Much like the US, France has very diverse climates by geography, coastal patterns, varying altitudes, etc.

But I don't have any hard and fast answers for you. I don't have all the information needed to form an informed opinion. I can speculate and wonder and guess, but that's about it.

a reply to: network dude

If OP linked the study I wouldn't have felt the need to criticize him/her/it.

a reply to: joejack1949

I agree he should have. But lucky for everyone, a nice ATS pro took care of it, so we all know the truth.

originally posted by: joejack1949
a reply to: anonentity

Interesting article either way, but needs more research before I (personally) would be alarmed.

As always, with a grain of salt until enough info is gathered. The problem really is the censorship. This might be critical info and these scientist's work may never open doors to further the inquiry if the media doesn't allow these studies to be freely discussed.

If I tried to post this on cbc I'd be censored and I was fully censored on fb a year ago so nothing comes out there. Just a small sample of communications that have been restricted. Censorship and propaganda are not good science.

a reply to: Boadicea

That's one way to get the trills and shrols to totally abandon a thread... LoL !!

Beautiful to see how it plays-out.
Have seen it happen a few times now, always the same pattern.

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: Boadicea

That's one way to get the trills and shrols to totally abandon a thread... LoL !!

Beautiful to see how it plays-out.
Have seen it happen a few times now, always the same pattern.

Just doing my part to live up to the good old ATS motto to deny ignorance.

Sunshine is good!!!

a reply to: Boadicea

And they won't come back, because they want the thread to die, and get buried.
Didn't check to see if they were using those techniques of boosting-up other threads, to keep this one low in the "Recent Threads" view though. It's one of the known tactics, as you may well know.

Have a great day Boadi !!

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: anonentity

Where is the article? Articles in Circulation, the journal of th American Heart Association, can be viewed online freely; you could post a link to it here. Even abstracts of articles of interest not published in the magazine are viewable.

Where's the article, where's the link? Why aren't the article title, authors and issue of publication mentioned in your post or your link?

Well, I'm happy to be the one to help you out. Fear no more! a link to the report has been found, and you can now rest easy knowing the truth is here.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I'm sure I speak for many of us when I say I eagerly anticipate your reply to the report.

a reply to: network dude

Thanks, Dr Colman had just received it and got it out as soon as possible. Oh, ye of little faith. I just came across it about midnight so thought it worth getting out there.It is still late in the day and the damage has been done. But it is a massive hole in the defences of anyone pushing this #. No doubt when the birth rates come out this will be eclipsed as well.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: anonentity

Where is the article?

Here it is:

Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning

Steven R Gundry
Originally published8 Nov 2021Circulation. 2021;144:A10712

Abstract

Our group has been using the PLUS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences, Inc, Irvine, CA) a clinically validated measurement of multiple protein biomarkers which generates a score predicting the 5 yr risk (percentage chance) of a new Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). The score is based on changes from the norm of multiple protein biomarkers including IL-16, a proinflammatory cytokine, soluble Fas, an inducer of apoptosis, and Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF)which serves as a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue, among other markers. Elevation above the norm increases the PULS score, while decreases below the norm lowers the PULS score.The score has been measured every 3-6 months in our patient population for 8 years. Recently, with the advent of the mRNA COVID 19 vaccines (vac) by Moderna and Pfizer, dramatic changes in the PULS score became apparent in most patients.This report summarizes those results. A total of 566 pts, aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen in a preventive cardiology practice had a new PULS test drawn from 2 to 10 weeks following the 2nd COVID shot and was compared to the previous PULS score drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre- shot. Baseline IL-16 increased from 35=/-20 above the norm to 82 =/- 75 above the norm post-vac; sFas increased from 22+/- 15 above the norm to 46=/-24 above the norm post-vac; HGF increased from 42+/-12 above the norm to 86+/-31 above the norm post-vac. These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac.We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.

Not filled with confidence about this paper considering he seems to have misspelled the name of the test he is using...

a reply to: ScepticScot

It is hot off the press and who proofreads these days is all Grammarly. Is that your only concern a spelling mistake.?

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: ScepticScot

It is hot off the press and who proofreads these days is all Grammarly. Is that your only concern a spelling mistake.?

Pointing out the lack of accuracy seemed fair than pointing out the author appears to be a bit if a quak

www.gripeo.com...

Or that jumping to all doctors and nurses administering the vaccine will be struck off and arrested based on the unverified results of this paper might be a bit of a stretch.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Not filled with confidence about this paper considering he seems to have misspelled the name of the test he is using...

Well, okay... that's your judgment call. But to be fair... given that it was only misspelled once although mentioned numerous times, it's more likely a typo than anything else.

I'm far more concerned that the tests were conducted and analyzed properly to reach the appropriate and accurate conclusions. At least to the extent that they could be interpreted and conclusions made. Quite often clinical studies and tests answer some questions, only to raise more questions, which then must be studied and analyzed.

Wikipedia describes him as --

...an American doctor and author. He is a former cardiac surgeon and currently runs his own clinic, investigating the impact of diet on health. Gundry conducted cardiac surgery research in the 1990s[2] and was a pioneer in infant heart transplant surgery,[3] and is a New York Times best-selling author of The Plant Paradox: The Hidden Dangers in "Healthy" Foods That Cause Disease and Weight Gain.[4]

Wikipedia -- Steven Gundry

The American Heart Association (AHA) has published several studies by Dr. Gundry in their "Circulation" journal --

Circulation -- Steven Gundry

Dr. Gundry and his research is not without controversy, but he sure doesn't sound like a slouch!

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ScepticScot

Not filled with confidence about this paper considering he seems to have misspelled the name of the test he is using...

Well, okay... that's your judgment call. But to be fair... given that it was only misspelled once although mentioned numerous times, it's more likely a typo than anything else.

I'm far more concerned that the tests were conducted and analyzed properly to reach the appropriate and accurate conclusions. At least to the extent that they could be interpreted and conclusions made. Quite often clinical studies and tests answer some questions, only to raise more questions, which then must be studied and analyzed.

Wikipedia describes him as --

...an American doctor and author. He is a former cardiac surgeon and currently runs his own clinic, investigating the impact of diet on health. Gundry conducted cardiac surgery research in the 1990s[2] and was a pioneer in infant heart transplant surgery,[3] and is a New York Times best-selling author of The Plant Paradox: The Hidden Dangers in "Healthy" Foods That Cause Disease and Weight Gain.[4]

Wikipedia -- Steven Gundry

The American Heart Association (AHA) has published several studies by Dr. Gundry in their "Circulation" journal --

Circulation -- Steven Gundry

Dr. Gundry and his research is not without controversy, but he sure doesn't sound like a slouch!

Wikipedia also says this

T. Colin Campbell, a biochemist and advocate for plant-based diets, states that The Plant Paradox contains numerous unsupported claims and denies that it makes a "convincing argument that lectins as a class are hazardous."[8] Robert H. Eckel, an endocrinologist and past president of the American Heart Association, argues that Gundry's diet advice contradicts "every dietary recommendation represented by the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Diabetes Association and so on" and that it is not possible to draw any conclusions from Gundry's own research due to the absence of control patients in his studies. Writing in New Scientist, food writer and chef Anthony Warner notes that Gundry's theories "are not supported by mainstream nutritional science" and that evidence of the benefits of high-lectin containing diets "is so overwhelming as to render Gundry’s arguments laughable".[24]

a reply to: musicismagic

Its all about profits for the P and M Drug Markers.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Wikipedia also says this...

Yes, it does. And I noted that his work was not without controversy.

But it's also important to note that the sources quoted do not cite their own clinical studies, only opinions and conventional wisdom.

...denies that it makes a "convincing argument"... contradicts "every dietary recommendation represented by the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Diabetes Association"... not possible to draw any conclusions from Gundry's own research... "are not supported by mainstream nutritional science"...

While all of those comments may technically be true, they are also subjective and inconclusive. None offer any clinical studies or evidence to support their own positions. There may in fact be such research, but it isn't cited, and therefore offers no real credibility over Gundry's research and conclusions.

Not only has Gundry conducted and analyzed medical research in support of his conclusions, a quick look on PubMed shows that many other studies have been conducted and published which support Gundry's research --

PubMed -- Lectins

-- as well as other research on lectins as healing agents. Some of the research pre-dates the publication of Dr. Gundry's research.

I have no position or opinion on the research itself, because I don't know enough to have a position. But I will give more credit to actual clinical researched published in a major medical journal before the opinions and conventional wisdom spouted as the ultimate and final authority.