MRNA Vaccines increase risk of acute coronary syndrome

[Den60]

The risk of developing acute coronary syndrome (ACS) significantly increased in patients after receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, according to a report presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2021, held from November 13 to 15, 2021.

The study included 566 men and women (1:1) aged 28-97 years, who were patients in a preventive cardiology practice. All patients received a new PULS Cardiac Test 2-10 weeks after their second COVID-19 vaccine. This test result was compared with a PULS score from 3-5 months prevaccination. The PULS Cardiac Test measures multiple protein biomarkers, including hepatocyte growth factor [HGF], soluble Fas, and IL-16, and uses the results to calculate a 5-year risk score for new ACS. The PULS score increases with above-normal elevation. All participants received this test every 3-6 months for 8 years.

https://www.thecardiologyadvisor.com/home/topics/acs/acute-coronary-syndrome-acs-biomarkers-mrna-covid19-vaccine/

[bigbossman]

Balgor? What say you...we're just dying to hear.

[tundraboomer]

Doop...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1758931

[bigbossman]

Ball Boy sez..... "Perfectly normal, to be expected."

[Den60]

Doop...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1758931

Sorry, Did look.

[Den60]

Ball Boy sez..... "Perfectly normal, to be expected."

Maybe he and wall of text guy are busy this week?

But hey, this is just coming from some small convention of cardiologists. It isn't like they know anything about cardiac issues.

[bigbossman]

Maybe he and wall of text guy are busy this week?

But hey, this is just coming from some small convention of cardiologists. It isn't like they know anything about cardiac issues.

Wall of Text actually brushed aside an actual MD's real world experience with regard to actual concerned cardiologists, in favor of his "research".

Amazing hubris, that one.

[Den60]

Related to this and why I question the data we are being force fed:

A leading cardiologist in the UK has warned that a colleague of his is finding it impossible to get research published because it definitively links COVID vaccines to a massive increase in heart attacks.

Appearing on GB News, Dr. Aseem Malhotra related how he was contacted by a researcher from a prestigious British Institution who said that he had found concrete links between inflammation of coronary arteries and the experimental mRNA vaccines.

Dr. Malhotra added that his colleague told him the institution decided it would be better not to publish the results, fearing it would lose its research funding.

Referring to UK government health data showing there has been a substantial increase in the number of cardiology-related deaths recently, Malhotra noted, “somebody from a very prestigious British institution – a cardiology department researcher [and] a whistleblower – contacted me to say that researchers in [his] department had found something similar within the coronary arteries linked to the vaccine.”

https://summit.news/2021/12/01/video-senior-cardiologist-warns-study-linking-covid-vaccines-to-massive-increase-in-heart-attacks-is-being-totally-ignored/

[Wherryj]

Related to this and why I question the data we are being force fed:



https://summit.news/2021/12/01/video...tally-ignored/

This reminds me of the talks about "man-made climate change" done by Professor Patrick Moore. People try to refute his data by asking about how he explains the fact that most of the scientists support the other side.

It comes down to who is paying the bills. If a "scientist" is only getting grants for finding a particular result, that "scientist" either finds that result or finds a new line of work. When you pay for "A" you get "A" or you stop paying.

It sounds like this research is being suppressed because the groups that would publish the findings know that it would dry up their funding. Very few people are willing to risk their safety and security even if it means suppressing information that could be vital for others.

[Den60]

This reminds me of the talks about "man-made climate change" done by Professor Patrick Moore. People try to refute his data by asking about how he explains the fact that most of the scientists support the other side.

It comes down to who is paying the bills. If a "scientist" is only getting grants for finding a particular result, that "scientist" either finds that result or finds a new line of work. When you pay for "A" you get "A" or you stop paying.

It sounds like this research is being suppressed because the groups that would publish the findings know that it would dry up their funding. Very few people are willing to risk their safety and security even if it means suppressing information that could be vital for others.

Back in college, I was taught that you wanted your "worst enemy" to question your data since a failure to do so would provide support for your work. And, I also see similarities between the "research" done on these vaccines and the "research" done on climate change. Debate is nearly criminalized when it comes to these "vaccines." Why the "pro-vaxers" on here don't find that concerning I just can't explain.

We deserve the right to know how safe these shots are and the only way to know that is by allowing full disclosure and debate.

[as_rocketman]

Back in college, I was taught that you wanted your "worst enemy" to question your data since a failure to do so would provide support for your work. And, I also see similarities between the "research" done on these vaccines and the "research" done on climate change. Debate is nearly criminalized when it comes to these "vaccines." Why the "pro-vaxers" on here don't find that concerning I just can't explain.

We deserve the right to know how safe these shots are and the only way to know that is by allowing full disclosure and debate.

I'm in almost total agreement with this -- the debate is important, the vaccines (including the adenovirus types) do present a nontrivial cardiac risk, and quantifying those risks is important. Also, the reason I bring information here is to expose it to the most savage critics I can think of. One does not have to agree with critics, but you don't learn anything by sheltering knowledge or proposals from opponents.

Where I differ is in the comparison to climate change. The rhetoric and mainstream reporting may indeed be similar, I don't have a dog in that fight and I was already freaked out about the politicization of media on other grounds... But the nature of the two sciences is quite different. Climate change depends heavily on modeling and forecast of stochastic systems. This was true for early pandemic propagation modeling, but mechanism of vaccines and properly run trials are a much, much more objective field. Consequently, there is a great deal of high-quality information available on vaccine safety. Is it all answered? Of course not. Are there still unquantified long-term risks? Sure. But we have a good amount of objective information available that bears directly on our problem.

[bigbossman]

....the vaccines (including the adenovirus types) do present a nontrivial cardiac risk.....

Wait.... what? That's not the tune you were singing in your "I think I'm getting my daughter vaccinated" thread.

[DaveInOroValley]

I predict in the not so distant future the doctor will say "Oh yes it seems to be a common issue with people that had taken the Covid shot" when explaining why someone is having a health issue.

[as_rocketman]

Wait.... what? That's not the tune you were singing in your "I think I'm getting my daughter vaccinated" thread.

Yes it is. I've been working pretty hard to quantify the risks. I wouldn't bother if they were negligible, now would I?

They still seem to be quite manageable, but we will know for sure at the end of the week, with the next VAERS drop.

[SanDiego619]

Wait.... what? That's not the tune you were singing in your "I think I'm getting my daughter vaccinated" thread.

He thinks covid presents a greater risk to children than the vaccine for some reason. The funny thing about that is, the vaccine doesn't protect people from covid.

So a kid can either get covid and have a 99.9999999% chance of being perfectly fine, or take the vaccine and risk heart damage, and still get covid and have a 99.9999999% chance of survival.

Giving the jab to kids makes no sense.