COVID Vaccine Inrease Risk of Heart Inflammation?

9,893 Views | 474 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by RD2WINAGNBEAR86
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
From the American Heart Association:

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712

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

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.

twitter apparently feels the information is too dangerous for the public to digest:

https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4......3....2.....1. DUBUNKED!!! (insert Sam Lowry MSM link here)
The last variant will be named Communism.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

NYT constantly puts out pieces of leaked and illegal information by our intelligence community to advance the interests and narratives around their bureaucracy.

We're no different. Our problem is we're so arrogant and naive we refuse to believe it.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

NYT constantly puts out pieces of leaked and illegal information by our intelligence community to advance the interests and narratives around their bureaucracy.

We're no different. Our problem is we're so arrogant and naive we refuse to believe it.
There is a pretty significant difference between The New York Times and Russian state-controlled media.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

It's interesting (and perhaps, telling) that your initial inclination was to attack the messenger.

There are plenty of articles regarding twitter censoring the information in question. A simple google search would have revealed that (see below), if you were concerned the article was posting false info. I am not sure if you read the article, but that's the reason it was posted. The RT article doesn't express concern over American vaccines, but merely talks about the AHA abstract and the twitter censorship.

https://goodwordnews.com/twitter-censors-links-to-american-heart-association-on-vaccine-research/

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/censorship-covid-19-health/2021/12/02/id/1047151/

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/twitter-slaps-unsafe-label-american-heart-association-mrna-vaccine-warning
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

It's interesting (and perhaps, telling) that your initial inclination was to attack the messenger.

There are plenty of articles regarding twitter censoring the information in question. A simple google search would have revealed that (see below), if you were concerned the article was posting false info. I am not sure if you read the article, but that's the reason it was posted. The RT article doesn't express concern over American vaccines, but merely talks about the AHA abstract and the twitter censorship.
It's interesting that you chose RT.com and not "plenty of articles" to support your case. You have access to Google, but chose Rt.com. That Putin is a rascal
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

NYT constantly puts out pieces of leaked and illegal information by our intelligence community to advance the interests and narratives around their bureaucracy.

We're no different. Our problem is we're so arrogant and naive we refuse to believe it.
There is a pretty significant difference between The New York Times and Russian state-controlled media.
Not much.
The last variant will be named Communism.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

D. C. Bear said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

NYT constantly puts out pieces of leaked and illegal information by our intelligence community to advance the interests and narratives around their bureaucracy.

We're no different. Our problem is we're so arrogant and naive we refuse to believe it.
There is a pretty significant difference between The New York Times and Russian state-controlled media.
Not much.
Looks like Russian state-controlled media has been successful in your case.

In any event, the media source of the information isn't particularly important for whether it will prove to be important or not.
whitetrash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

D. C. Bear said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

NYT constantly puts out pieces of leaked and illegal information by our intelligence community to advance the interests and narratives around their bureaucracy.

We're no different. Our problem is we're so arrogant and naive we refuse to believe it.
There is a pretty significant difference between The New York Times and Russian state-controlled media.
Not much.
Yes there is. NYT has a daily crossword puzzle.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

It's interesting (and perhaps, telling) that your initial inclination was to attack the messenger.

There are plenty of articles regarding twitter censoring the information in question. A simple google search would have revealed that (see below), if you were concerned the article was posting false info. I am not sure if you read the article, but that's the reason it was posted. The RT article doesn't express concern over American vaccines, but merely talks about the AHA abstract and the twitter censorship.
It's interesting that you chose RT.com and not "plenty of articles" to support your case. You have access to Google, but chose Rt.com. That Putin is a rascal
I am trying to understand your argument, if you in fact have one. Do you dispute that twitter put a warning label on the abstract from the American Heart Association?

If you want to engage in an irrelevant ad hominem on RT, you are welcome to it. I don't really care, as long as you don't dispute the substance. It's always easier to attack the messenger, as it takes the focus off the lack of substance in your posts.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

It's interesting (and perhaps, telling) that your initial inclination was to attack the messenger.

There are plenty of articles regarding twitter censoring the information in question. A simple google search would have revealed that (see below), if you were concerned the article was posting false info. I am not sure if you read the article, but that's the reason it was posted. The RT article doesn't express concern over American vaccines, but merely talks about the AHA abstract and the twitter censorship.
It's interesting that you chose RT.com and not "plenty of articles" to support your case. You have access to Google, but chose Rt.com. That Putin is a rascal
For the record, I didn't choose RT for any particular reason. It was the first article that came up in my search engine.

It's odd you attribute ulterior motives to my choice.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

4......3....2.....1. DUBUNKED!!! (insert Sam Lowry MSM link here)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL1N2SH1HN
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

It's interesting (and perhaps, telling) that your initial inclination was to attack the messenger.

There are plenty of articles regarding twitter censoring the information in question. A simple google search would have revealed that (see below), if you were concerned the article was posting false info. I am not sure if you read the article, but that's the reason it was posted. The RT article doesn't express concern over American vaccines, but merely talks about the AHA abstract and the twitter censorship.
It's interesting that you chose RT.com and not "plenty of articles" to support your case. You have access to Google, but chose Rt.com. That Putin is a rascal
For the record, I didn't choose RT for any particular reason. It was the first article that came up in my search engine.

It's odd you attribute ulterior motives to my choice.
Why did you find the original link, but not the one Sam had in the link above? It is odd that you didn't know about both.
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

It's interesting (and perhaps, telling) that your initial inclination was to attack the messenger.

There are plenty of articles regarding twitter censoring the information in question. A simple google search would have revealed that (see below), if you were concerned the article was posting false info. I am not sure if you read the article, but that's the reason it was posted. The RT article doesn't express concern over American vaccines, but merely talks about the AHA abstract and the twitter censorship.

https://goodwordnews.com/twitter-censors-links-to-american-heart-association-on-vaccine-research/

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/censorship-covid-19-health/2021/12/02/id/1047151/

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/twitter-slaps-unsafe-label-american-heart-association-mrna-vaccine-warning


Stop being a victim. Your source is suspect at best.

That said it does seem the vaccines stress the heart. Several medical groups or hospitals tracking heart disease have said the same thing. Vaccines are inherent stressors to our bodies, but generally it's better to experience mild versions of the thing than the real thing.

This could be an exception for very healthy young people. It might be best for society for everyone to be vaccinated, but there are several promising treatments out there. If we get to the point where we can effectively treat covid before it poses serious risk, the vaccines will hopefully be unnecessary for the young and healthy.

What is certain is that the vaccines have been overwhelmingly good for us. This doesn't change that.
EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam, can you find a rebuttal that doesn't spend so much time quoting experts that lump any concerns about the MRNA vaccines as bad influence by "anti'vaxxers". This is what is wrong with the handling of this pandemic. Just say that the abstract has these flaws. And for the other side, just say that there MAY be an issue with the vaccine that needs further investigation.

That might encourage the science and medical community to act the same, and not assign blanket blame as if some diddling group on social media is influencing massive amounts of people to be concerned about a new med. (I don't see a great ballooning of the number of "flat earthers" in the US because they are able to put up their silly arguments on YouTube. I don't see a real growth in the number of actual anti-vaxxers either - just the same people acting more confident in their claims since they are now armed with confirmation bias.)

I have had the Moderna vax and booster. But if there is something I need to look out for, I'd like to know without having to sift through name shifting and stereotyping of people. Almost all meds have side effects that should be readily available to know.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
EatMoreSalmon said:

Sam, can you find a rebuttal that doesn't spend so much time quoting experts that lump any concerns about the MRNA vaccines as bad influence by "anti'vaxxers". This is what is wrong with the handling of this pandemic. Just say that the abstract has these flaws. And for the other side, just say that there MAY be an issue with the vaccine that needs further investigation.

That might encourage the science and medical community to act the same, and not assign blanket blame as if some diddling group on social media is influencing massive amounts of people to be concerned about a new med. (I don't see a great ballooning of the number of "flat earthers" in the US because they are able to put up their silly arguments on YouTube. I don't see a real growth in the number of actual anti-vaxxers either - just the same people acting more confident in their claims since they are now armed with confirmation bias.)

I have had the Moderna vax and booster. But if there is something I need to look out for, I'd like to know without having to sift through name shifting and stereotyping of people. Almost all meds have side effects that should be readily available to know.
The experts quoted don't actually seem to "lump any concerns about the MRNA vaccines as bad influence by "anti'vaxxers." They, at least a number of them, looked at the data offered in the poster and found it lacking. I'm not a fan of social media companies dictating what we can see or post. In this instance, calling it crap appears to be justified.

https://twitter.com/lfoquet/status/1462888024862121990?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1463877100822278144%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2Ffactcheck-coronavirus-vaccines-idUSL1N2SH1HN
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

4......3....2.....1. DUBUNKED!!! (insert Sam Lowry MSM link here)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL1N2SH1HN


The critiques are cited in the article I linked, which is why I asked the question in the OP. Of course, mere questions about the abstract in no way "debunk" the conclusions by the cardiologist. Hopefully he will answer the critiques.
Limited IQ Redneck in PU
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

4......3....2.....1. DUBUNKED!!! (insert Sam Lowry MSM link here)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL1N2SH1HN
Thanks Sam
I have found theres only two ways to go:
Living fast or dying slow.
I dont want to live forever.
But I will live while I'm here.
EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This, in my opinion was an unnecessary addition to the tweets put up in the article. Why give credence to a fringe group as if that matters to sane people. Antivaxxers "weaponizing" anything would imply they are actually influential. Where is the room for further study on this with this kind of response.


[url=https://twitter.com/gorskon][/url]
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
EatMoreSalmon said:

This, in my opinion was an unnecessary addition to the tweets put up in the article. Why give credence to a fringe group as if that matters to sane people. Antivaxxers "weaponizing" anything would imply they are actually influential. Where is the room for further study on this with this kind of response.


[url=https://twitter.com/gorskon][/url]
The problem is that they are actually influential. I have seen it first hand. Not everybody has the training to evaluate information effectively.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

It's interesting (and perhaps, telling) that your initial inclination was to attack the messenger.

There are plenty of articles regarding twitter censoring the information in question. A simple google search would have revealed that (see below), if you were concerned the article was posting false info. I am not sure if you read the article, but that's the reason it was posted. The RT article doesn't express concern over American vaccines, but merely talks about the AHA abstract and the twitter censorship.

https://goodwordnews.com/twitter-censors-links-to-american-heart-association-on-vaccine-research/

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/censorship-covid-19-health/2021/12/02/id/1047151/

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/twitter-slaps-unsafe-label-american-heart-association-mrna-vaccine-warning


Stop being a victim. Your source is suspect at best.

That said it does seem the vaccines stress the heart. Several medical groups or hospitals tracking heart disease have said the same thing. Vaccines are inherent stressors to our bodies, but generally it's better to experience mild versions of the thing than the real thing.

This could be an exception for very healthy young people. It might be best for society for everyone to be vaccinated, but there are several promising treatments out there. If we get to the point where we can effectively treat covid before it poses serious risk, the vaccines will hopefully be unnecessary for the young and healthy.

What is certain is that the vaccines have been overwhelmingly good for us. This doesn't change that.
The American Heart Association is suspect? Interesting.

I am not sure what you mean about being a victim. I merely posed a question based on an abstract put out by the American Heart Association. I don't know if it's true, but it's interesting none the less, and worthy of discussion.

It's no surprise that the usual suspects are upset about my thread. They've all showed up in force on this thread.
BearFan33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Here is the problem I see.

I have no idea whether the abstract is good or not. But the fact of the matter is a medical person cannot publish anything anti-vaccine without being tarred, feathered and run out of town. It shouldn't be that way.

Being even skeptical publicly about the vaccine is putting medical professionals at great personal and professional risk and that shouldn't be the case.

If they meet the standards, such abstracts and articles should be published, examined, discussed and, if appropriate, criticized by the leaders in the field. It's always been that way up to the age of covid.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

It's interesting (and perhaps, telling) that your initial inclination was to attack the messenger.

There are plenty of articles regarding twitter censoring the information in question. A simple google search would have revealed that (see below), if you were concerned the article was posting false info. I am not sure if you read the article, but that's the reason it was posted. The RT article doesn't express concern over American vaccines, but merely talks about the AHA abstract and the twitter censorship.
It's interesting that you chose RT.com and not "plenty of articles" to support your case. You have access to Google, but chose Rt.com. That Putin is a rascal
For the record, I didn't choose RT for any particular reason. It was the first article that came up in my search engine.

It's odd you attribute ulterior motives to my choice.
Why did you find the original link, but not the one Sam had in the link above? It is odd that you didn't know about both.
Sam's link did not appear in my search. You might want to do some research about why google pulls up certain articles and not others. It has to do with the search terms you use.

For example, I assume Sam furiously googled ways to debunk the abstract, as he always does when it comes to a critique of the vaccine, and he utilized different search terms with that goal in mind. Of course, his cite didn't debunk anything, but merely raised questions.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearFan33 said:

Here is the problem I see.

I have no idea whether the abstract is good or not. But the fact of the matter is a medical person cannot publish anything anti-vaccine without being tarred, feathered and run out of town. It shouldn't be that way.

Being even skeptical publicly about the vaccine is putting medical professionals at great personal and professional risk and that shouldn't be the case.

If they meet the standards, such abstracts and articles should be published, examined, discussed and, if appropriate, criticized by the leaders in the field. It's always been that way up to the age of covid.
Spot on. We saw it early on in the pandemic as well when medical experts questioned the pangolin/wet market origin story, with scientists with a vested interest lying to the public in an attempt to discredit any scientist who found the origin story suspect.

And of course, we see it on this board as well. You can count on Sam, DC, Oso, and Potterso to come out in force and try to discredit anything that resembles a critique of the vaccine. Like you, I don't know if what this cardiologist and the American Heart Association have published is true, but I am no expert and am certainly not as dismissive. It's worth investigating.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

Sam Lowry said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

4......3....2.....1. DUBUNKED!!! (insert Sam Lowry MSM link here)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL1N2SH1HN
Thanks Sam
Good to see Sam's groupie making an appearance.
9b1deb4d-3b7d-4bad-9bdd-2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ITT: A bunch of dumb ass losers that are so afraid of vaccines that they didn't take 30 seconds to research all the other medicines they take that can cause heart inflammation.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
clubhi said:

ITT: A bunch of dumb ass losers that are so afraid of vaccines that they didn't take 30 seconds to research all the other medicines they take that can cause heart inflammation.
And yet another one makes an appearance.

Like moths to a flame...
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearFan33 said:

Here is the problem I see.

I have no idea whether the abstract is good or not. But the fact of the matter is a medical person cannot publish anything anti-vaccine without being tarred, feathered and run out of town. It shouldn't be that way.

Being even skeptical publicly about the vaccine is putting medical professionals at great personal and professional risk and that shouldn't be the case.

If they meet the standards, such abstracts and articles should be published, examined, discussed and, if appropriate, criticized by the leaders in the field. It's always been that way up to the age of covid.


I did not comment on it at first because I also had no idea if it was good or not as I had not looked in to it.

If you read the links, however, it becomes apparent that the poster abstract is not good.

This poster's author was not being tarred, feathered and run out of town because he published something anti vaccine. He was being criticized because what he published appears to have been garbage. Amazing to me how some of the same people who are quick to tell us to "follow the money" as it relates to vaccines and "Big Pharma" are quick to latch on to a third-rate poster from a guy whose primary business seems to be marketing dietary supplements.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

D. C. Bear said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

It's interesting (and perhaps, telling) that your initial inclination was to attack the messenger.

There are plenty of articles regarding twitter censoring the information in question. A simple google search would have revealed that (see below), if you were concerned the article was posting false info. I am not sure if you read the article, but that's the reason it was posted. The RT article doesn't express concern over American vaccines, but merely talks about the AHA abstract and the twitter censorship.
It's interesting that you chose RT.com and not "plenty of articles" to support your case. You have access to Google, but chose Rt.com. That Putin is a rascal
For the record, I didn't choose RT for any particular reason. It was the first article that came up in my search engine.

It's odd you attribute ulterior motives to my choice.
Why did you find the original link, but not the one Sam had in the link above? It is odd that you didn't know about both.
Sam's link did not appear in my search. You might want to do some research about why google pulls up certain articles and not others. It has to do with the search terms you use.

For example, I assume Sam furiously googled ways to debunk the abstract, as he always does when it comes to a critique of the vaccine, and he utilized different search terms with that goal in mind. Of course, his cite didn't debunk anything, but merely raised questions.
"steven gundry covid vaccine heart inflammation." First link on the page after the article itself.
BearFan33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

BearFan33 said:

Here is the problem I see.

I have no idea whether the abstract is good or not. But the fact of the matter is a medical person cannot publish anything anti-vaccine without being tarred, feathered and run out of town. It shouldn't be that way.

Being even skeptical publicly about the vaccine is putting medical professionals at great personal and professional risk and that shouldn't be the case.

If they meet the standards, such abstracts and articles should be published, examined, discussed and, if appropriate, criticized by the leaders in the field. It's always been that way up to the age of covid.


I did not comment on it at first because I also had no idea if it was good or not as I had not looked in to it.

If you read the links, however, it becomes apparent that the poster abstract is not good.

This poster's author was not being tarred, feathered and run out of town because he published something anti vaccine. He was being criticized because what he published appears to have been garbage. Amazing to me how some of the same people who are quick to tell us to "follow the money" as it relates to vaccines and "Big Pharma" are quick to latch on to a third-rate poster from a guy whose primary business seems to be marketing dietary supplements.
The mob is gathering.

With that a said there are legit criticisms of the abstract. But there are also people investigating and doxing the person/people behind the abstract like what they did was a crime.

Physicians are being threatened with loss of medical license in some states for prescribing alternative therapies. I have seen the warnings.

This is not how its supposed to work.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

D. C. Bear said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

It's interesting (and perhaps, telling) that your initial inclination was to attack the messenger.

There are plenty of articles regarding twitter censoring the information in question. A simple google search would have revealed that (see below), if you were concerned the article was posting false info. I am not sure if you read the article, but that's the reason it was posted. The RT article doesn't express concern over American vaccines, but merely talks about the AHA abstract and the twitter censorship.
It's interesting that you chose RT.com and not "plenty of articles" to support your case. You have access to Google, but chose Rt.com. That Putin is a rascal
For the record, I didn't choose RT for any particular reason. It was the first article that came up in my search engine.

It's odd you attribute ulterior motives to my choice.
Why did you find the original link, but not the one Sam had in the link above? It is odd that you didn't know about both.
Sam's link did not appear in my search. You might want to do some research about why google pulls up certain articles and not others. It has to do with the search terms you use.

For example, I assume Sam furiously googled ways to debunk the abstract, as he always does when it comes to a critique of the vaccine, and he utilized different search terms with that goal in mind. Of course, his cite didn't debunk anything, but merely raised questions.
I know how to do Google searches.

You posted the abstract itself as the main content of your post. It turns out that the poster for which it was written appears to be garbage. You should have examined it more closely before posting crap. Your observation that Twitter didn't want us to digest this information without a warning is interesting. While I am not a fan of social media companies acting like schoolmarm editors, they were not trying to hide the truth from the public here and your post is evidence that were not incorrect if they assumed members of the public would be unable to adequately analyze the quality of that abstract.

The reason that studies like the one you posted in the OP above don't tend to show up in major media is that these outlets either have their own expertise or access expertise to determine whether something is news or garbage. This is why there was extensive coverage of studies showing (rare) blood clots and (rare) myocarditis following vaccination but not extensive coverage of this poster.

BTW, Sam's post doesn't simply "raise questions" about the abstract, it eviscerates it based on the data that it provides and fails to provide.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

BearFan33 said:

Here is the problem I see.

I have no idea whether the abstract is good or not. But the fact of the matter is a medical person cannot publish anything anti-vaccine without being tarred, feathered and run out of town. It shouldn't be that way.

Being even skeptical publicly about the vaccine is putting medical professionals at great personal and professional risk and that shouldn't be the case.

If they meet the standards, such abstracts and articles should be published, examined, discussed and, if appropriate, criticized by the leaders in the field. It's always been that way up to the age of covid.


I did not comment on it at first because I also had no idea if it was good or not as I had not looked in to it.

If you read the links, however, it becomes apparent that the poster abstract is not good.

This poster's author was not being tarred, feathered and run out of town because he published something anti vaccine. He was being criticized because what he published appears to have been garbage. Amazing to me how some of the same people who are quick to tell us to "follow the money" as it relates to vaccines and "Big Pharma" are quick to latch on to a third-rate poster from a guy whose primary business seems to be marketing dietary supplements.
I haven't seen anyone on this thread who has "latched on" to the abstract authored by the cardiologist. As I said above, I have no idea if his findings are accurate, but it does appear the AHA thought it wasn't "garbage" or they would not have published it. Certainly, none of the critiques I've seen warrant the garbage label, though I understand why some resident experts are quick to label it as such.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Mothra said:

D. C. Bear said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

It's interesting (and perhaps, telling) that your initial inclination was to attack the messenger.

There are plenty of articles regarding twitter censoring the information in question. A simple google search would have revealed that (see below), if you were concerned the article was posting false info. I am not sure if you read the article, but that's the reason it was posted. The RT article doesn't express concern over American vaccines, but merely talks about the AHA abstract and the twitter censorship.
It's interesting that you chose RT.com and not "plenty of articles" to support your case. You have access to Google, but chose Rt.com. That Putin is a rascal
For the record, I didn't choose RT for any particular reason. It was the first article that came up in my search engine.

It's odd you attribute ulterior motives to my choice.
Why did you find the original link, but not the one Sam had in the link above? It is odd that you didn't know about both.
Sam's link did not appear in my search. You might want to do some research about why google pulls up certain articles and not others. It has to do with the search terms you use.

For example, I assume Sam furiously googled ways to debunk the abstract, as he always does when it comes to a critique of the vaccine, and he utilized different search terms with that goal in mind. Of course, his cite didn't debunk anything, but merely raised questions.
I know how to do Google searches.

You posted the abstract itself as the main content of your post. It turns out that the poster for which it was written appears to be garbage. You should have examined it more closely before posting crap. Your observation that Twitter didn't want us to digest this information without a warning is interesting. While I am not a fan of social media companies acting like schoolmarm editors, they were not trying to hide the truth from the public here and your post is evidence that were not incorrect if they assumed members of the public would be unable to adequately analyze the quality of that abstract.

The reason that studies like the one you posted in the OP above don't tend to show up in major media is that these outlets either have their own expertise or access expertise to determine whether something is news or garbage. This is why there was extensive coverage of studies showing (rare) blood clots and (rare) myocarditis following vaccination but not extensive coverage of this poster.

BTW, Sam's post doesn't simply "raise questions" about the abstract, it eviscerates it based on the data that it provides and fails to provide.
Apparently you don't if you don't understand how two different people using different search terms didn't come across the exact same article.

Sam's article doesn't eviscerate anything. It merely questions the methodology and evidence used to arrive at the conclusions reached. As I said, hopefully the scientist who authored the abstract will provide the information requested.

You seem angry. Maybe take a break and calm down.

D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearFan33 said:

D. C. Bear said:

BearFan33 said:

Here is the problem I see.

I have no idea whether the abstract is good or not. But the fact of the matter is a medical person cannot publish anything anti-vaccine without being tarred, feathered and run out of town. It shouldn't be that way.

Being even skeptical publicly about the vaccine is putting medical professionals at great personal and professional risk and that shouldn't be the case.

If they meet the standards, such abstracts and articles should be published, examined, discussed and, if appropriate, criticized by the leaders in the field. It's always been that way up to the age of covid.


I did not comment on it at first because I also had no idea if it was good or not as I had not looked in to it.

If you read the links, however, it becomes apparent that the poster abstract is not good.

This poster's author was not being tarred, feathered and run out of town because he published something anti vaccine. He was being criticized because what he published appears to have been garbage. Amazing to me how some of the same people who are quick to tell us to "follow the money" as it relates to vaccines and "Big Pharma" are quick to latch on to a third-rate poster from a guy whose primary business seems to be marketing dietary supplements.
The mob is gathering.

With that a said there are legit criticisms of the abstract. But there are also people investigating and doxing the person/people behind the abstract like what they did was a crime.

Physicians are being threatened with loss of medical license in some states for prescribing alternative therapies. I have seen the warnings.

This is not how its supposed to work.
Saying there are "legit criticisms of the abstract" is kind of like saying Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein had some issues with women.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.