These findings are broadly similar to results published in 2021:
Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning. November 8, 2021
Our group has been using the PLUS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences, Inc, Irvine, CA) a clinically validated me…
These findings are broadly similar to results published in 2021:
Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning. November 8, 2021
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.
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.
Weird how you linked to the study but continue to use the original UNCORRECTED text that is NOT used in the link you provided. Kind of as though, you knew it had been corrected but decided to pick the version that you prefer even though THE AUTHORS have signed off on the corrections. Extraordinarily common theme with the science-denying antivax crowd....
NO controls, the participants were their own control (which is valid for many inquiries but not this study), NOT statistically tested, "based on data which has not been validated in this population. No statistical comparison was done in this observational study." = pretty much worthless
A great control would have been a population who were unvaccinated, but contracted a symptomatic (however mildly) case of confirmed CVD19. Given we KNOW without any doubt these SAME markers can be elevated/increased following almost ANY kind of immune system challenge.
IOW, these markers can be elevated from contracting CVD19. THAT is the proper context of vaccine safety risk/benefit paradigm and discussion: the vaccine vs. the INFECTION. It is NEVER 'vaccine vs. I'm just gonna tell that virus NO THANK YOU and refuse to get it, by using my Jesus prayer shield'. At least not with a pathogen as highly transmissible and contagious as CVD19. One can reasonably avoid infection with numerous other pathogens that are sorta hard to transmit or contract. e.g. HIV. In these cases, 'vaccination vs. I'm just not going to get it' (by more than a prayer shield) is a rational paradigm. NOT with measles, influenza, CVD19, et. al.
These findings are broadly similar to results published in 2021:
Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning. November 8, 2021
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.
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.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712
and link that explains in more detail the mechanism of injury to endothelial cells:
Perspectives on the Pandemic | "Blood Clots and Beyond" | Episode 15 featuring Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, M.D. April 16, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyPjAfNNA-U
Weird how you linked to the study but continue to use the original UNCORRECTED text that is NOT used in the link you provided. Kind of as though, you knew it had been corrected but decided to pick the version that you prefer even though THE AUTHORS have signed off on the corrections. Extraordinarily common theme with the science-denying antivax crowd....
NO controls, the participants were their own control (which is valid for many inquiries but not this study), NOT statistically tested, "based on data which has not been validated in this population. No statistical comparison was done in this observational study." = pretty much worthless
A great control would have been a population who were unvaccinated, but contracted a symptomatic (however mildly) case of confirmed CVD19. Given we KNOW without any doubt these SAME markers can be elevated/increased following almost ANY kind of immune system challenge.
IOW, these markers can be elevated from contracting CVD19. THAT is the proper context of vaccine safety risk/benefit paradigm and discussion: the vaccine vs. the INFECTION. It is NEVER 'vaccine vs. I'm just gonna tell that virus NO THANK YOU and refuse to get it, by using my Jesus prayer shield'. At least not with a pathogen as highly transmissible and contagious as CVD19. One can reasonably avoid infection with numerous other pathogens that are sorta hard to transmit or contract. e.g. HIV. In these cases, 'vaccination vs. I'm just not going to get it' (by more than a prayer shield) is a rational paradigm. NOT with measles, influenza, CVD19, et. al.