Posted on October 20, 2021by covexit
Note: an Addendum has been added this November 24th, to include new evidence
from an article published in the prestigious journal “Circulation” and
confirming the considerably elevated risk of cardiovascular accidents.
This letter
from Marc Wathelet, PhD, Expert in Molecular Biology and Immunology, is
addressed to the Belgian Minister of Health, Frank
Vandenbroucke, and analyzes not only the mandates imposed on health care workers but
also the vaccination of children and the “Safe Ticket” vaccination passport
intended for the general population. The content of the letter is relevant not
only to the Belgian situation but also to that of other countries adopting this
kind of coercive measures, that are particularly questionable as for their
public health benefits.
(The letter is available in French at
this LINK)
Dear Mr. Vandenbroucke , Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister of Social Affairs and Public Health
Thank you for your response to our letter
concerning the compulsory vaccination of health care workers, which you justify
based on a certain number of assertions which are however not supported by
documentation of scientifically established facts.
On the contrary,
the scientific data
available to date contradict all of your arguments and, as detailed below, we
can only conclude that the compulsory vaccination of health care workers is not
only useless, but also counterproductive from a public health perspective. Such
compulsory vaccination also violates the principles of bio-ethics and medical
ethics as well as our human rights.
1) Compulsory
Vaccination of Health Care Workers is Unnecessary
Mandatory vaccination of health care workers is
unnecessary because studies show beyond a reasonable doubt that it does not
prevent the contamination of an individual, nor does it reduce the viral load
of infected people, and therefore their ability to transmit the virus to
others.
In appendix A you will find a long list of facts,
scientific publications and official statements from qualified agencies and individuals,
such as Dr. Fauci, who confirms our assertion that vaccination does not prevent
the disease. the contamination of an individual and his ability to transmit the
delta variant circulating today to others.
We will only take a recent example here: on
September 23, the Irish Examiner announced that in the city of Waterford, 99.7%
of those over 18 were fully vaccinated, which is the highest total in the
entire European Union. https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40704104.html . On October 11, Waterford News & Star reported that the city
had the highest incidence rate in Ireland https://waterford-news.ie/2021/10/11/waterford-now-has-highest-incidence-of-covid-in-ireland/ .
There is only one conclusion to be drawn, which
cannot be disputed in good faith: beyond studies, in the real world, in
practice: vaccination does not make it possible to prevent the transmission of
SARS-CoV-2 in the community.
2) Mandatory
Vaccination of Health Care Workers is Counterproductive from a Public Health
Point of View
The message that COVID vaccines would be “safe and
effective,” an unsupported claim if only for the lack of the necessary
hindsight, was hammered out constantly for months in all the media. One of the
negative effects of this campaign is the acceptance of this assertion as an
established fact, not only by the population but also by its leaders.
As a result, vaccinated people respect less
behaviors such as social distancing or wearing a mask. And since they are
more likely to be asymptomatic when infected, which makes them less aware of
the risk they pose to others, they are actually more likely to spread the virus
than non-vaccinated people.
In practice, this means
that the COVID Safe Ticket (Belgian vaccination passport) is not only useless
but also counterproductive. It is a license for vaccinated people to infect
others, whether they are vaccinated or not.
The same reasoning applies to health care workers,
even if they observe social distancing more scrupulously: vaccinating all
health care workers will not prevent the contamination of “sick or vulnerable
people because of their great age” which you are rightly concerned about.
We agree with you that “people taken care of have
the right to maximum safety”. We offer two non-exclusive alternatives to the
compulsory vaccination of health care workers, which will be much more
effective in preventing nosocomial infections:
a. Have all nursing staff, vaccinated or not,
tested at high frequency. In this regard, note that nasopharyngeal tests are
not without risk, as reported by the Academy of Medicine in France https://tinyurl.com/7fnj6nu8 . Two other safer methods can be considered: an oro-pharyngeal
antigen test or an oral PCR test.
b. Establish a voluntary ivermectin prophylaxis
program: There are 14 studies that support the effectiveness of this
approach https://ivmmeta.com.
Finally, the compulsory vaccination of health care
workers is counterproductive from a public health point of view because those
who still refuse to be vaccinated will no longer be able to work, and therefore
the number of health care workers, already in short supply, will be even
smaller, with a negative impact on public health.
In France, there are ~ 300,000 unvaccinated health
care workers (~ 10%) https://tinyurl.com/47j2pd5v , and 15,000 of them are already suspended from their job https://tinyurl.com/5ejfxewf . In Belgian hospitals, 9.4% of health care workers are not
vaccinated and in elderly / nursing homes, 13.1% are not https://tinyurl.com/4fzvma6m .
3) The
Illusion of Herd Immunity
You say: “Scientists say that 70% of the total
population (including children) would need to be fully vaccinated for everyone
to be protected. With the Delta variant, which is more contagious than the
first variants, we continue to aim for that 70%, but we are striving to achieve
the highest percentage possible.”
This opinion seems to be shared above all by the
experts appointed by the government. On the contrary, many scientists had
anticipated that vaccinating during a pandemic was not a sufficient approach to
control the virus, and events proved them right (see Appendix A for a list of
citations).
You say that “Vaccination reduces the circulation
of the virus”. This is contradicted by the articles cited above about the delta
variant (Appendix A), the example of the City of Waterford, and now a large
study shows that the increases in COVID-19 are indeed not linked to the levels
of vaccination worldwide (cf the comparative study of 68 countries, as well as
2,947 counties in the United States) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7 .
4) The
Dangers of COVID vs. the Dangers of Vaccination
You say, “If we’re afraid of variants, we certainly
need to vaccinate more today.” Since hard data indicates that vaccination does
not work in practice, even when everyone is vaccinated, the solution cannot be
to vaccinate more!
There is no reason to be afraid of variants: on the
one hand the lethality of the Delta variant is one tenth of the Alpha according
to Public Health England, and on the other hand the lethality of COVID is
intrinsically weak. It is mainly linked to the presence of comorbidities (99%
of deaths occur in people with comorbidity, 96% in people with multiple comorbidities,
Appendix B ).
Importantly, this lethality
is comparable to that caused by other respiratory infections. Therefore,
neither the COVID Safe Ticket nor the compulsory vaccination are justifiable
from a public health point of view!
Those at risk have had the opportunity to be
vaccinated or can take prophylactic treatment if they choose not to be
vaccinated. The situation of these individuals cannot therefore justify putting
other healthy individuals at unnecessary risk.
The risks inherent in COVID
vaccinations, in the medium and long term, simply remain unknown, due to the
lack of the necessary hindsight (we note, however, the prolonged
post-vaccination syndrome, similar to long COVID). The short-term risk is
evident despite the intense efforts of the health authorities, mainstream media
and big tech to suppress all information on this subject.
For example, the Israeli Ministry of Health
published an article on its Facebook page about severe adverse reactions, that
it described as very rare only, to find itself inundated by a deluge of
contrary opinions from its citizens (14,000 in a few hours), opinions that were
swiftly deleted. Denying this reality is not a solution to the problem.
Facebook is routinely removing any group that
identifies adverse reactions to vaccines, groups with tens of thousands of
users in the United States and elsewhere. By what right? In French speaking
countries alone, the (non-exhaustive) collection of screenshots of these
individual reports testifies to the catastrophic scale of the phenomenon https://tinyurl.com/337947zx .
Pharmacovigilance databases around the world are
all reporting an increase in severe adverse reactions and deaths from COVID
vaccines ( http://www.vigiaccess.org/ [WHO]; https: //vaers.hhs .gov / [United States]; https://yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/the-yellow-card-scheme/ [United Kingdom]; https://www.adrreports.eu/en/search.html [Eudravigilance, European Union]).
Analysis of VAERS data, for example, shows a much
higher incidence for COVID vaccines than for influenza severe adverse events
(28 times more) and deaths (57 times more, see Appendix B). What’s the use of
these pharmacovigilance sites if such data are brushed aside as irrelevant,
when on the contrary, they should call for the suspension of the vaccination
campaign?
The fact-checking sites, financed by the
pharmaceutical industry, come to the rescue of the official narrative by
affirming that there is no proof that these deaths are attributable to the
vaccines. This is to reverse the burden of proof!
According to a report from the French medications
agency ANSM (January 28, 2021), the official pharmacovigilance rule is this:
“The analysis of reported cases takes into account clinical, chronological,
semiological and pharmacological data. It may lead to the vaccine’s
responsibility for the occurrence of an observed adverse event being dismissed
only when another, certain, cause is identified.”
In fact, an audit of data reported to VAERS shows
that only 14% of deaths following vaccination can be attributed to another
cause, and it is not just anyone filling such reports, as 67% of the reports
have been made by a doctor. Similarly, in Eudravigilance, 79% of the reports
regarding a death were filed by a health care professional.
In reality, all of the Bradford Hill criteria are
mostly observed, which means that these vaccines are the cause of most of the
reported adverse reactions. When autopsies, which are too rarely done, are
performed, between 30 and 100% of deaths are attributable to vaccination (see
annex B).
These databases are poorly designed, leading to
erroneous reports on both sides of the debate. For example, we see circulating
for Eudravigilance a figure greater than 25,000 deaths following vaccination
against COVID. A more rigorous analysis indicates 7,174 deaths as of October 9,
2021. VAERS analysis gives a number of deaths of the same order of magnitude
(7,680, as of October 8, 2021).
These pharmacovigilance systems are passive,
leading to a very significant underreporting of the real number of cases. A
factor of 5 seems conservative, but regardless of the exact number, what is
indisputable is that people in good health, without co-morbidities, young
people, die from vaccination or are seriously injured.
A rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn from the market
in 1999 because of only 15 cases of intussusception. The swine flu vaccination
campaign in 1976 was halted after 25 deaths. We are at about 3,000 times more
at the minimum (appendix B). How many more deaths will it take before we
realize the obvious?
Data shows that those who are cautious about
vaccines are more educated on average than those who favour vaccination,
contrary to how they are portrayed in the media.
And the reality of serious adverse effects due to
vaccination is confirmed by the fact that it is precisely health care workers
who do not want to be vaccinated, despite their education and the fact that
they are generally in favour of vaccination (they are not anti-vaxxers!),
because they are on the front line and can see the damage these vaccines cause.
It is therefore deeply
immoral to make vaccination compulsory, whether it concerns health care workers
or any category of citizens. Likewise, it is unethical to encourage the
vaccination of groups of individuals who were excluded from the Phase 3 of the
clinical trials, in particular pregnant women and those under the age of 18.
Children deaths due to COVID are extremely rare and
observed exclusively in individuals suffering from severe co-morbidities.
Therefore the deaths of healthy children already recorded following vaccination
should lead to an immediate moratorium on the vaccination of children. This
should also apply to pregnant women, especially given the absence of information
on the long-term effects of these injections.
Compulsory vaccination violates not only ethics,
but also fundamental concepts of rights, as demonstrated by Alessandro Negroni,
professor of philosophy of law at the University of Genoa. “In light of
European and international law, genetic anti-covid vaccines constitute a
medical experiment on human beings. From an ethical as well as a legal point of
view, no one can be obliged to submit to a form of medical experimentation in
the absence of free and informed consent.” http://www.mediaplus.site/2021/10/09/les-vaccins-genetiques-anti-covid-sont-une-forme-dexperimentation-medicale/
We hope that you will take this analysis into
account and that you will realize that we must abandon the idea of compulsory
vaccination with experimental products for anyone, as well as the
implementation of a COVID Safe Ticket based on anything else than a recent
test.
Let us also abandon therapeutic nihilism, and treat
infected individuals early, as medicine had always done before the start of
this crisis.
Yours faithfully,
By ReinfoCovid Belgium and the non-profit “Notre
Bon Droit”
Analysis by Marc G. Wathelet, Ph.D. (Molecular
Biology)
APPENDIX A
– Data on the Effects of Vaccination on Infection and Transmission
The effect of vaccination on the risk of SARS-CoV-2
infection and its transmission to others was modest in the initial studies, but
the rapid decline in immunity in vaccinated individuals and the appearance of
more contagious variants makes this effect negligible today, as discussed in
detail in this
document https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/questions-sur-limmunisation-et-la-transmission-de-marc-wathelet/?published=t ,
drafted as part of a legal action by the non-profit organization “Notre Bon Droit”
in opposition to the “COVID Safe Ticket” — the Belgian Government’s vaccination
passport.
This document dates from July 28, 2021, and
contains 50 references and the studies that have appeared since that date only
confirm this analysis:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v1
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.13372
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.19.21262139v1
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.12.21261951v2
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm?s_cid=mm7031e2_w
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264262v1.full.pdf
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.02.21262979v1
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264260v1.full.pdf
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7
Data from Public Health England up to the 40th week
of 2021
The most recent data from Public Health England
indicate that in all cohorts the rate of infection is higher in vaccinated than
in unvaccinated people from the age of 30. In these conditions, the
obligation of vaccination is simply absurd.
The CDC and Dr. Fauci recognized the impact of the
greater contagiousness of the Delta variant and did reinstate the wearing of
the mask for the vaccinated https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/28/dr-fauci-on-
why-cdc-changed-guidelines-delta-is-a-different-virus.html.
In addition, the document cited
above https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/questions-sur-limmunisation-et-la-transmission-de-marc-wathelet/?published=t also
compares immunity against SARS -CoV-2 acquired following vaccination and that
following natural infection and shows that the latter is more robust, wider and
more balanced regarding the production of antibodies and T cells. It also lasts
longer than the vaccine-induced immunity, which translates into better and
longer lasting protection against infection for individuals having recovered
from COVID compared to vaccinees.
Health care workers are among those who have been
most exposed to the virus so far, so it would be absurd to impose a vaccination
on them when, for many of them, their natural immunity is more
effective. Here too, the studies that have appeared since only confirm
this analysis:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.12.21261951v2
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/374/bmj.n2101.full.pdf
The #Covidrationnel collective in Belgium, which
includes around thirty university professors, researchers and doctors, carried
out a similar analysis and reached the same conclusions: https://covidrationnel.be/2021/10/06/de-source-sure/
These studies are confirmed by observations in the real world, in the jurisdictions with the highest vaccination rates such as the Seychelles, Gibraltar and Iceland. The high rate of vaccination does not prevent significant waves of infections that follow shortly the vaccination campaign.
More recently, in the city of Waterford in Ireland
where 99.7% of the people over 18s are fully
vaccinated, https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40704104.html ,
one observes the highest incidence rate in Ireland (618.9 infected per 100,000
over the last 2
weeks) https://waterford-news.ie/2021/10/11/waterford-now-has-highest-incidence-of-covid-
in-ireland /.
A recent global study shows increases in COVID-19
cases are indeed unrelated to immunization levels across the world (68
countries and 2,947 counties in the United
States) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/
s10654-021-00808-7 .
APPENDIX
B – The Dangers of COVID vs. the Dangers of COVID
Vaccination
From a public health point of view, it is not
helpful to consider the general case fatality rate. Rather, it’s a
question of identifying populations at risk.
a. The
Dangers of COVID
The dangers of COVID are related to age and the
presence of comorbidities. 99% of deaths occur in people with comorbidity, 96%
in people with multiple comorbidities according to the US CDC:
COVID
survival rates by age group according to Dr. Ioannidis’ team:
Age Survival rate
0-19 99.9973%
20-29 99.986%
30-39 99.969%
40-49 99.918%
50-59 99.73%
60-69 99.41%
70+ 94.5%
These figures do not distinguish COVID from other
respiratory infections in terms of lethality, and therefore do not justify a
different approach to manage this disease from a public health
perspective. Therefore, neither the COVID Safe Ticket nor compulsory vaccination
are justified from a public health point of view!
b. The Dangers
of COVID Vaccination
There are excellent vaccines, with a very favorable
risk-benefit ratio, against severe diseases, such as tetanus or yellow fever,
for example. However, the benefit-risk ratio sometimes turns out to be
unfavorable, and the vaccine in question is then withdrawn from the market.
For example, a rotavirus vaccine was taken off the
market in 1999 due to only 15 cases of intussusception https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC2094741/ .
The swine flu vaccination campaign in 1976 was
interrupted after 25 deaths https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2009/09/15/le-precedent-vaccinal-de-1976_1240713_3244.html . It also caused 532 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome.
What about the COVID Vaccines?
A simple correlation is not synonymous with
causation. We rely on the Bradford Hill criteria, which are widely
verified for these vaccines as shown below. They are:
1. Strength of the association (the larger the
magnitude of the effects associated with the association, the more likely a
causal link is, even if a small effect does not imply no causal link);
2. Stability of the association (its repetition in
time and space)
3. Consistency (the same observations are made in
different populations);
4. Specificity (a cause produces a particular
effect in a particular population in the absence of other explanations);
5. Temporal relationship (temporality). The
causes must precede the consequences;
6. Dose-effect relationship (a larger dose leads to
a larger effect);
7. Plausibility (biological plausibility,
possibility of explaining the mechanisms involved);
8. Experimental evidence (in animals or in humans);
9. Analogy (possibility of alternative
explanations).
For example, temporality ( # 5 ) shows a
very high incidence of death in the days following vaccination, before falling
back to the normal level.
The same profile of adverse reactions is observed
in Europe and the United States ( # 3 ), listed below, in decreasing
order of frequency compared to their respective norm:
pulmonary embolism, stroke, deep vein thrombosis,
thrombosis, increased fibrin D dimers, appendicitis, tinnitus, cardiac arrest,
death, Parkinson’s disease, slow speech, aphasia (inability to speak), fatigue,
pericardial effusion, headache head, chills, pericarditis, deafness,
myocarditis, intracranial hemorrhage, spontaneous abortion, cough, Bell’s
palsy, paresthesia, blindness, dyspnea (difficulty breathing), myalgia,
dysstasia (difficulty standing), convulsions, anaphylactic reaction, suicide ,
speech disorder, thrombocytopenic thrombotic purpura, paralysis, swelling,
diarrhea, neuropathy, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, depression.
Their number increases with the level of
vaccination, and there is specificity ( # 4 ), the adverse effect
profile shown above is different from that observed for influenza vaccines but
is similar to the effects of COVID; also, some populations are affected
differently, for example myocarditis and pericarditis affect more young men.
Biological plausibility ( # 7 ): COVID
vaccines produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in our cells just as infection
with the virus does, and the side effects mimic those seen in disease; the
Spike protein shows in vitro intrinsic toxicity towards endothelial
cells and cardiac pericytes:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-020-00771-8
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096999612030406X?via%3Dihub
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.30.442194v1
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.21.423721v2
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318902.
Experimental evidence (animal or human, #
8 ), mouse experiments reproduce
myopericarditis https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab707/6353927 .
Strength of association ( # 1 ) and
stability ( # 2 ):
Report of serious adverse reactions and deaths for
all COVID vaccines per million doses compared to annual influenza vaccines from
2016 to 2021, to the H1N1 strain of influenza vaccine in 2009-2010, and to all
vaccines except those against COVID from 2006 to 2021 in the US VAERS system.
Analysis of VAERS data shows a much higher
incidence for COVID vaccines than for influenza severe side effects (28X plus)
and death (57X plus).
Absolute numbers of serious adverse reactions and
deaths in VAERS for the 3 vaccines in the United States against COVID, and
their ratio by number of injections.
An audit of VAERS data shows that only 14% of
deaths following vaccination can be attributed to another cause; at least
67% of reports were initiated by a physician.
As the VAERS system is passive, only a small
proportion of real cases are recorded there. This proportion can be
estimated on the basis of a study of 64,900 employees of a Massachusetts
hospital measuring the serious reactions compatible with anaphylaxis that can
occur immediately after vaccination: they occurred at a rate of 2.47 per cent.
10,000 vaccinations. The incidence rate of anaphylaxis confirmed in this
study is higher than that reported by the CDC on the basis of passive methods
(VAERS) of spontaneous notification (0.025-0.11 per 10,000 vaccinations). https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777417
These data suggest that the under-reporting in
VAERS is by a factor of between 22.5 and 98.8!
This indicates that the number of deaths exceeds
150,000 and the number of severe side effects exceeds one million in the United
States.
Absolute figures of serious adverse reactions and
deaths in the European Economic Area for the 4 vaccines against COVID, and
their ratio by number of injections.
79% of death reports were initiated by healthcare
personnel.
The official rule in pharmacovigilance: “The
analysis of reported cases takes into account clinical, chronological,
semiological and pharmacological data. It may lead to the vaccine’s
responsibility for the occurrence of an observed adverse event being dismissed
as soon as another, certain cause is identified. “
When autopsies, which are too rarely done, are
performed, between 30 and 100% of deaths are attributable to vaccination. Peter
Schirmacher, chief pathologist at Heidelberg University, determined that
autopsy reports indicate that, conservatively, at least 30-40% of a sample of
40 people who died within two weeks of vaccination actually died from the
vaccine. https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/126061/Heidelberger-Pathologe-pocht-auf-mehr-Obduktionen-von-Geimpften .
Professors Arne Burkhardt and Walter Lang, forensic
pathologists, presented the results of ten autopsies in Reutlingen on Monday,
September 20. Of the ten deaths, seven are “probably” related to the
injections, of which five are “very likely”. For the last three cases, one
of them remains to be evaluated, another seems to be “a coincidence”, and for
the last, the link “is possible but not certain”. https://tinyurl.com/3b779fer .
In Norway, when 23 deaths following vaccination
occurred in an EHPAD, the authorities carried out 13 autopsies and these 13
deaths were found to be linked to vaccination https://norwaytoday.info/news/norwegian-medicines-agency-
links-13-deaths-to-vaccine-side-effects-those-who-died-were-frail-and-old/ .
A French drug assessment center concluded that
COVID vaccination should be discontinued https://tinyurl.com/2s64aenn , for all 4 products. And the Moderna vaccine is abandoned by
some countries for the youngest (Norway, Sweden, Denmark; France for the second
dose).
Finally, in an article titled “Why are we
vaccinating children against COVID?” », the authors conclude that not only is
their vaccination contraindicated, but that even for the most vulnerable
subjects over 65 years of age, the risk-benefit analysis shows that there are 5
times more deaths attributable to vaccination. than to disease https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X .
It is against bioethics and the law to vaccinate
groups of individuals who were excluded from phase 3 clinical trials,
especially those under the age of 18. https://medcritic.fr/la-vaccination-des-enfants-contre-le-covid19-1/ :
Society, by vaccinating children, puts them at risk
in order to protect adults without considering their well-being, while it is
the responsibility of adults to protect themselves.
It is also not only incorrect that the delta
variant would be more dangerous for children https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.06.21264467v1 , but data from the British National Statistics Office (ONS)
indicates a 46% increase in deaths in the 15-19 age group since their
vaccination was authorized (+ 63% in young men, + 16% in young women #
4 ), compared to the same period in 2020. https://theexpose.uk/2021/09/30/deaths-among-teenagers-have-increased-by-47-percent-since-covid-vaccination-began/ .
This letter, dated October 17, is translated from
French and reproduced with permission from a post on LinkedIn. Please
refer to the original
version in French for any
formal reference.
Addendum; New Research Confirms Substantially Elevated
Cardiovascular Risks
I am discussing here an abstract entitled “Mrna
COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS
Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning”, by the group of Dr.
Steven R. Gundry, an eminent cardiologist.
Source : Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines
Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured
by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning, by Steven R Gundry, publié le 8 Novembre
2021 dans le journal prestigieux Circulation. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712
This group of researchers are using a validated
test, which is based on biological markers and which can predict the risk of an
acute coronary syndrome within 5 years. This study concerns a population of 566
individuals aged 28 to 97 years, followed for 8 years already in a longitudinal
study, a type of study which allows researchers to detect evolutions or changes
in the characteristics of the target population at the same time at the group level
and at the individual level.
The risk of a 5-year cardiac event observed before
vaccination was 11% over this 8-year period. After the COVID vaccination, this
risk rose to 25%, which is a huge increase!
This is not about comparing groups of individuals
as in a randomized controlled trial, which may introduce confounding factors.
As each patient serves as his own control, these confounding factors are
eliminated and the results obtained are therefore very robust. These clinical
observations are consistent with pharmacovigilance data which show a dramatic
increase in thrombosis, cardiomyopathy and other vascular events following
vaccination.
At the time of this report, these changes persist
for at least 2.5 months after the second dose of vaccine. If these changes were
to persist over time, we can expect a veritable epidemic of heart attacks in
the years to come, in the order of many tens of thousand heart attacks above
the norm over 5 years for a country the size of Belgium.
These changes may subside in the months that
follow, but in all likelihood taking any additional dose could only increase
the risk of acute coronary syndrome even further.
There is only one conclusion: it is absolutely
necessary to stop the vaccination campaign. And for those who are already
vaccinated, it is important not to do a third dose. Primum non nocere: first do
no harm. Let us remember that an acute coronary syndrome is fatal 90% of the
time!
Below is the original abstract reproduced in its
entirety:
Our group has been using the PULS 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.The score has
been measured every 3-6 months in our patient population for 8 years. Recently,
with the advent of the mRNA COVID 19 vaccines (vac) by Moderna and Pfizer,
dramatic changes in the PULS score became apparent in most patients.This report
summarizes those results. A total of 566 pts, aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen
in a preventive cardiology practice had a new PULS test drawn from 2 to 10
weeks following the 2nd COVID shot and was compared to the previous PULS
score drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre- shot. Baseline IL-16 increased from
35+/-20 above the norm to 82 +/- 75 above the norm post-vac; sFas increased
from 22+/- 15 above the norm to 46+/-24 above the norm post-vac; HGF increased
from 42+/-12 above the norm to 86+/-31 above the norm post-vac. 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.
Source: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712
SOURCE : https://covexit.com/letter-by-marc-wathelet-phd-to-the-belgian-minister-of-health/
