Posted on 12/02/2021 1:53:34 PM PST by ransomnote
PING
I’ll bet that number goes up by many times in the 18-45 y.o. group.
Fuhrer Fauci will call it misinformation and will have you arrested and charged for spreading false information.
More top of the line journalism from the hacks at “The Daily Expose”.
The headline says:
“Study finds Covid Vaccines increase the risk of Heart Attack by 127%”
The body of the article says:
“.. a new scientific study suggests the Covid vaccines increase the risk of suffering a heart attack by 127%.”
So, which is it? Definitive or suggestive?
Only the hacks at “The Daily Expose” know for sure I guess.
Meanwhile, people are sickening and dying of post vax illnesses, including cardiac arrest, myocarditis, periocarditis etc....but don’t let that interfere with your ‘tactics’.
So I’ve seen various reports along these same lines. They all point to the mRNA vaccines. They don’t call out the JNJ vaccine. That may be because it wasn’t widely used or widely studied in this context.
I did note that Fauci was telling JNJ people they need a booster after 2 months, vs 6 months for the other vaccines.
SUGGESTS why they do not want a control group
Gundry...stay away from those tomatoes too!
People can go right to the article in question at ahajournals.org. Easy to understand - and don’t need to get the info filtered through the hacks at “The Daily Expose”.
The the people in the Gundry study were already at higher risk for heart attacks because they were patients at a preventive cardiac practice.
The study shows that for these patients it did increase their PULS cardiac score which has been highly correlated with the risk of subsequent cardiac events in the following 5 years.
So yes, we know the vaccine can cause some cardiovascular damage including myocarditis and pericarditis. So it’s reasonable to assume that the risk of a heart attack goes up.
You can’t apply a 125% increase in the PULS score and say everyone’s risk goes up by that much, because the study was too limited.
But it is a concern. And merits further investigation. I don’t think the Gundry study says how long the PULS score stays elevated after receiving the vaccine.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001051
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.”
| Fury wrote: |
People can go right to the article in question at ahajournals.org. Easy to understand - and don’t need to get the info filtered through the hacks at “The Daily Expose”. |
Where is the public going to see it when people like you, Twitter and others 'run interference'? The general public doesn't browse the American Heart Association webpages.
You aren't thread cop and that badge you flash is fake - you got it out of a circus 'fishbowl' challenge.
“Rare”.
LOL!
The hack jobs at “The Daily Expose” apparently skipped the day they taught journalism at journalism school, because information that a FReeper posted at post 11 puts the information at AHA Journals in context.
“The Daily Expoase” did none of that - just “hair on fire” reporting.
.
We'll see.
Since you read the study, would you recommend someone who’s, say, 60, overweight and diabetic take the twice-yearly mRNA covid vaccine?
bkmk
Same garbage from the same quack doctor. Like the 18th time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.