Do COVID-19 Vaccines DOUBLE Heart Attack Risk?!

Spread the love

Do COVID-19 vaccines DOUBLE the risk of heart attack over 5 years?!

Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : COVID-19 Vaccines DOUBLE Heart Attack Risk!

People are sharing a Twitter post and video of Dr. Aseem Malhotra telling Joe Rogan about a study by Dr. Steve R. Gundry that claims to prove that COVID-19 vaccines double your heart attack risk over a 5-year period!

COVID Vaccines DOUBLE Heart Attack Risk Over 5-Year Period, According to Data from Cardiac Surgeon

“What he [Dr. Steve R. Gundry] found was that within eight to ten weeks of these patients taking the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine … those markers of inflammation in the blood had increased to a level where their risk of a heart attack went from 11% at five years – just within two months – to 25%,” shared @DrAseemMalhotra.

“To give it context, if I today decided I was going to smoke 40 cigarettes a day, eat junk food … not sleep, [and] stop exercising, I couldn’t even get close to increasing my risk that much in two months.”

Read more : Do mRNA Vaccines Increase Risk Of Death + Injuries?!

Truth : COVID-19 Vaccines Do NOT DOUBLE Heart Attack Risk!

This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS created by anti-vaccination activists, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : It Was An Abstract, Not A Peer-Reviewed Study

The article was an abstract (Abstract 10712), called “Observational Findings of PULS Cardiac Test Findings for Inflammatory Markers in Patients Receiving mRNA Vaccines“. It was not a peer-reviewed study.

An abstract is meant to be a short factual summary of an actual study, describing its context, methods, results and conclusions. However, the author – Steven R. Gundry – did not provide details of how he conducted the study, so it is impossible for anyone to confirm that his results are even accurate, much less peer-review it.

Fact #2 : The Abstract Was Published In 2021

This abstract was also published more than 17 months ago – on 8 November 2021. And as far as I can tell, the findings were never replicated or verified by other studies.

Fact #3 : AHA Published An Expression Of Concern

Circulation is a reputable medical journal, published by Lippincourt Williams & Wilkins for the American Heart Association. However, that does not mean that everything published in Circulation is peer-reviewed and/or endorsed by the American Heart Association.

In fact, right after the article was published, the journal published an Expression of Concern, noting (with our emphasis) :

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.

Recommended : Did US FDA Just Ban Pfizer + Moderna Vaccines?!

Do mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Increase Heart Disease Risk?

Fact #4 : PULS Test Does Not Directly Assess Cardiac Health

The PULS (Protein Unstable Lesion Signature) test is a proprietary blood test developed by GD Biosciences Inc. that claims to detect and diagnose early-stage heart disease in asymptomatic patients. It does this by measuring the plasma levels of 9 proteins that are allegedly biomarkers of endothelial (blood vessel) damage.

So the PULS test does not actually tell us anything about the condition of the patient’s heart. It only predicts the future risk of a plaque forming in the blood vessels, that could potentially detach or rupture and lead to a heart attack.

The protein levels that are measured also change over time. Did Gundry confirm that the protein levels remain elevated 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, or 12 months post-vaccination? Because if the increase in protein levels was transient, then the risk of acute coronary syndrome predicted by the PULS score would not actually change.

Fact #5 : Measurement Units + Important Data Are Missing!

While the PULS test looks at 9 protein levels, Dr. Gundry only mentioned three of them. What happened to the other six protein levels?

Did Dr. Gundry forget about them? Or did their results go against the abstract’s dramatic conclusions? How did Circulation let Dr. Gundry post an abstract with ⅓ of the data?

Incredibly, Circulation also allowed Dr. Gundry to publish test results that were devoid of measurement units. Were they measured in mg/dL or pg/ml or PLUS units? Who knows?

On top of that, the abstract does not even mention how many of those 566 patients had elevated PULS scores, and protein levels. Was it all of them? 50%? Or just 1%?

No matter how you slice and dice this abstract, no one can come to any conclusion with just ⅓ of the PULS test results that lack even measurement units.

Recommended : Did FDA just admit Pfizer vaccine has Graphene Oxide?!

Fact #6 : The Abstract Was Heavily Corrected

Despite being a short abstract, it was heavily corrected. In fact, the correction was posted on 21 December 2021 was much longer than the original abstract!

  • its title was revised from “Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning” to “Observational Findings of PULS Cardiac Test Findings for Inflammatory Markers in Patients Receiving mRNA Vaccines”
  • the PULS test was no longer “a clinically validated measurement”, but simply “a clinically utilized measurement”
  • it no longer claimed that “dramatic changes in PULS score became apparent in most patients” after receiving mRNA vaccines.
  • it added that “There was no comparison made with unvaccinated patients or pts treated with other vaccines“.
  • it removed the claim that “these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac”.
  • it added the warning that “No statistical comparison was done in this observational study“.
  • it removed the original conclusion that “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”, and replaced it with “the mRNA vacs numerically increase (but not statistically tested) the markers IL-16, Fas, and HGF, all markers previously described by others for denoting inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle, in a consecutive series of a single clinic patient population receiving mRNA vaccines without a control group.”

In the end, this abstract does not prove that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines double the risk of heart attack in a 5-year period. It only showed that the proprietary PULS score and 3 (out of 9) protein levels were elevated at a particular point in time for an unknown number of people.

Recommended : Are Children Dying From Heart Attacks By Vaccine?!

Fact #7 : PULS Test Not Used In Mainstream Cardiology

The PULS test is not used in mainstream cardiology, and its use is limited even in the few countries where it is offered.

For example, in the UK, it is only provided through a single medical practice that appears to be focused on “natural health”. Similarly, it is only available in India through a single provider.

Dr. Lander Foquet, an infectious disease scientist, pointed out that the PULs test was promoted heavily by the abstract author, and is “not something used by a real cardiologist”.

Fact #8 : Dr. Gundry Sells Supplements

It should also be noted that Dr. Gundry sells a plethora of dietary supplements under his own brand name – Gundry MD.

There is nothing wrong with creating and selling your own dietary supplements, of course. But many people would consider that to be a potential conflict of interest that should have been mentioned in the abstract’s disclosure. Dr. Gundry reported no conflict of interest.

Fact #9 : Dr. Gundry Was Pitching Quercetin

This was not mentioned in the printed Circulation abstract, but presented to the meeting attendees.

In his slide, Results An [sic] Conclusions, Dr. Gundry recommended the use of low-dose aspirin and/or Quercetin to “treat” this increased risk of heart disease from the mRNA vaccines.

Despite the dramatic claim that mRNA vaccines greatly increase inflammation of the heart, his recommended use of a supplement suggests that he doesn’t even believe it’s particularly dangerous.

I should point out that his recommended treatment is based on ZERO EVIDENCE. Dr. Gundry did not explain why he recommended either “treatment”. Neither did he provide any evidence to back them up.

Recommended : Did FAA Admit Pilot EKGs Not Normal After Vaccines?!

Do mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Increase Heart Disease Risk?
Credit : Dr. Lander Foquet

Fact #10 : mRNA Vaccine Cardiac Risk Limited To Myocarditis / Pericarditis

Post-marketing monitoring of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines have revealed that these mRNA vaccines introduce a small risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in young males.

However, there is NO EVIDENCE that mRNA vaccines cause increased risk of heart disease other than the aforementioned myocarditis / pericarditis risk.

Billions of doses of mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have already been administered worldwide in the past 28 months.

If the Gundry abstract is correct, we should have seen HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people keeling over from heart attacks in the last year or so. That is obviously not the case at all.

Please help us fight fake news – SHARE this article, and SUPPORT our work!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

About The Author

Leave a Reply