Do mRNA Vaccines Increase Heart Disease Risk?!

Do mRNA COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of heart disease, as published in the medical journal, Circulation?

Take a look at what the abstract claims, and what the facts really are!


Claim : mRNA Vaccines Increase Heart Disease Risk!

Last month, an abstract published in the medical journal, Circulation, went viral after it claimed to have proven that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of heart disease.

The abstract was dramatically titled “Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning“.

Using the PULS Cardiac Test, a group headed by Steven R. Gundry claimed that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines increased the 5-year risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) from 11% to a shocking 25%!

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.


Truth : mRNA Vaccines Do NOT Increase Heart Disease Risk!

Antivaxxers have been touting this study as a stake into the heart of mRNA vaccines – a study that definitively proves that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines cause heart disease, and should be stopped at all costs.

The truth is – this is yet another attempt to mislead the public on the safety of mRNA vaccines. mRNA COVID-19 do NOT increase heart disease risk, and here are the facts…

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

The article was an abstract (Abstract 10712), 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 the actual study, so it is impossible for anyone to confirm that his results are even accurate, much less peer-review it.

Fact #2 : 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.

Fact #3 : AHA Asked For Abstract Correction

According to Retraction Watch, the Director of National Science Media Relations at the American Heart Association stated that the author was given a deadline to issue his correction :

A correction from the research author has been requested and is due to the American Heart Association by 6:00 pm ET, Friday, Dec. 3, 2021. The author’s corrections will undergo review before publication.

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 looking for plasma levels of 9 proteins that are allegedly the 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 infers the risk of a plaque forming in the blood vessels, that could potentially detach or rupture and lead to a heart attack.

Fact #5 : Measurement Units + 6 PULs Test Results 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?

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.

Fact #6 : 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 #7 : 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.

Credit : Dr. Lander Foquet

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 : 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 12 months.

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


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 :

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 > Health | Fact Check | Tech ARP


Support Tech ARP!

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

Leave a ReplyCancel reply