Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 12/02/2021 1:53:34 PM PST by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Cathi; Unrepentant VN Vet; metmom; Fractal Trader; SecAmndmt; bagster; doc maverick; ...

PING


2 posted on 12/02/2021 1:53:50 PM PST by ransomnote (IN GOD WE TRUST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ransomnote

I’ll bet that number goes up by many times in the 18-45 y.o. group.


3 posted on 12/02/2021 1:56:49 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Do we value what the Revolutionary War vets gave us enough to fight for it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ransomnote

Fuhrer Fauci will call it misinformation and will have you arrested and charged for spreading false information.


4 posted on 12/02/2021 1:57:36 PM PST by SkyDancer ( I make airplanes fly, what's your super power?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ransomnote

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.


5 posted on 12/02/2021 1:58:40 PM PST by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ransomnote

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.


7 posted on 12/02/2021 2:02:18 PM PST by monkeyshine (live and let live is dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ransomnote

Gundry...stay away from those tomatoes too!


9 posted on 12/02/2021 2:04:16 PM PST by nascarnation (Let's Go Brandon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ransomnote

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.


11 posted on 12/02/2021 2:07:44 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ransomnote

“Rare”.


14 posted on 12/02/2021 2:16:40 PM PST by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ransomnote

.


16 posted on 12/02/2021 2:49:09 PM PST by sauropod (Meanie Butt Daddy - No you can't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ransomnote
The increased risk is over a 5 year time span. If the PULS score remains elevated there's cause for concern. If it's just a transitory reaction to the vaccine, probably not.

We'll see.

17 posted on 12/02/2021 2:56:00 PM PST by semimojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ransomnote

bkmk


19 posted on 12/02/2021 3:40:38 PM PST by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ransomnote

Same garbage from the same quack doctor. Like the 18th time.


20 posted on 12/02/2021 4:46:28 PM PST by Trumpisourlastchance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ransomnote

“The abstract is not a peer-reviewed published paper. The AHA has said that the abstract is unreliable because it lacks data and contains errors.”

https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/8667a706


23 posted on 12/02/2021 4:50:10 PM PST by jonrick46 (Leftnicks chase illusions of motherships at the end of the pier.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ransomnote; Enlightened1

You know... I think both of your persistent efforts are telegraphing out to the world and it is actually making a difference. The wind is changing direction... Thank you. :)


27 posted on 12/02/2021 5:56:18 PM PST by Openurmind (The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world it leaves to its children. ~ D. Bonhoeffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson