God bless you Vernon!
1 Like
Vernon Coleman might not have the same paper credentials as Peter McCulloch, Mike Yeadon, or Dolores Cahill, but for me he has been a long time source of well informed non-technical information since the start of this criminal enterprise. Thanks for posting
2 Likes
Thanks for posting, Rich.
Well - this is a bite-sized hand grenade news item, if ever there was one.
A simple blood test that measures the risk of a heart attack.
Here is the test first of all, admittedly from a promotional source:
DETECT HEART ATTACK RISK EARLY + ACCURATELY
https://www.phdiagnostics.com/puls-test
āTHE ONLY BLOOD TEST THAT MEASURES THE #1 CAUSE OF HEART ATTACK
The PULS test very accurately detects and measures the level of coronary heart diseaseā
https://www.phdiagnostics.com/puls-test
The study author says:
āThe PLUS Cardiac Test isā¦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)ā.
The test result itself gives the 5 year percentage risk of ACS. Well at least its simple.
The test is based on several markers,
āincluding 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 tissueā
In the study, the group has been measuring these markers every 3-6 months in their patients for years, and the resuting PULS scores. They compared PULS results 2-10 weeks post-shot with 3-5 months pre-shot.
āBaseline 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.ā
Well these are all more than doubling, itās no surprise that the final test number also more than doubles:
These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk.
āAt the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac.ā
Even if the risk falls after 2.5+ months, it would presumably be resurrected by boosters. Even discounting the possibility of cumulative effects of these hazardous biomarkers for intermittent periods, does this not suggest that a regular booster programme would keep jab recipients in this more-than-double ACS hazard region for 50% of the time?
And when they fall below this threshold, do they fall to zero - is there additional risk from the lower levels of inflammation?
Anyway here is the abstract of the study, from the journal Circulation:
Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning
Steven R Gundry
Abstract
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.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.
Link: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712
Isnāt this exactly the kind of warning that should have been picked up in the safety testing, which we are assured was rigorous? Bio-markers are routinely used to indicate disease or predict risk.
Mondayās UK Column news did a section on who in the UK is doing the monitoring either in the MHRA or their advisors. I donāt remember the details but it was absolutely clear that the MHRA is doing sweet fanny adams. It was also clear there are quite a few quangos all stuffed with guess what? Big pharma and all their hangers on.
1 Like
They allowed Pfizerās dodgy dossier to sail through 'nāall
Some useful suggestions here for those who have had the vaccine and are worried.
Never mind your GP - find a good health journalist 
3 Likes
Thanks for that. A close friend, one with ulcerative colitis has his fourth jab booked for next Feb. Itās almost impossible for me to think of a way to approach him sensitively. What do you say? I have recommended Kennedyās book, but heās not a big reader. A heart of gold, but not the brightest (by his own admission) and way too locked into trusting authority. Itās not really even trusting authority as that suggests a conscious decision; itās more of an unconscious ānot questioning authority, why would youā type of thing. āI just do what Iām toldā, as he once said to me. But thatās what weāre steeped in from birth, isnāt it?
4 Likes
I donāt know - Iāve not approached any of my friends. The above article might be a good start though - as it offers positive suggestions, while also drawing attention to the problems caused by the vaccines.
āThe Centers for Disease Control (CDC) concedes inflammation (myocarditis) of the heart muscle and inflammation of the lining that surrounds the heart (pericarditis) occur after Covid-19 vaccination. According to the CDC these adverse events occur more often after the 2nd dose and within a week of vaccination.ā
Inflammation of the heart muscle? And the heart lining? This is a pretty drastic thing to cause in the name of prophylaxis. I canāt envisage any competent and responsible authority endeavouring to push this onto people, especially the young, for whom the risk-benefit comparison works the wrong way on both sides.
But as you say youāre fighting a lifetime of entrenched beliefs and influences. And it might be extra hard to shift anyoneās outlook if fear of covid dominates their thinking, though. Maybe, realistically, some progress is needed on the idea that there are are numerous treatments that work early on, and the suppression of this idea is the main reason for all the deaths.
If youāre not responsible for them, the best you can do is give whatever information you can and leave it up to them 
.
1 Like
I have noticed that whereas in the beginning my friends were, at best, indulgent of my tinfoil hat-wearing foolishness, now, almost two years in, they arenāt nearly so ridiculing. I suspect thatās true of a lot of peopleās experience.
2 Likes
Yeah, the problem now is that ājust one moreā booster probably may not seem such a big risk to people. Well played, those GICs! (and behavioural psychologists).
This ACS data is the first indication that there could be not just ongoing, but escalating risk 
.
1 Like
Jamie, the figures are all there in the UK Government data. Thing is they deliberately obscure this dataā¦
UK Column are trying to make sense of the dataā¦
https://yellowcard.ukcolumn.org/yellow-card-reports
So far weāre over 1700 deaths and hundreds of thousands of adverse reactions to the jabs
The fact that they are still forcing people to be jabbed is criminal, and thatās putting it mildly.
In any normal roll-out of a vaccine (and this crap is not a vaccine) 50 deaths directly attributed to the vaccine programme would bring an immediate halt to it.
Again, in the UK alone, we are now looking at more than 1,700 deaths, going on the Governmentās own figures.
Iām not alone in saying that what we are witnessing at the moment is mass murder on a scale never seen before in human history.
1 Like
@RobG @Evvy_dense To be honest, Iām kinda hoping that they can eventually go back to ridiculing me for my foolishness; futile, I know, but the alternative is too depressing.
I know thereās buckets of evidence I could show them (God-knows weāve all been reading up on this stuff for long enough), but I meant it more in the way of, I love these people, Iāve known them for forty years, but given theyāve all been jabbed how do I, how can I tell them what many experts are saying?! And so we come back to me sort of hoping that our experts are all wrong.
The heartbreaks of civil war. Deliberately induced and entirely unnecessary in this case.
BTW, letās never forget that ā1,700ā deaths is pretty certainly a truly gross undercount, with the real figure likely somewhere between five and a hundred times as many, according to what little serious research work has been done on the disgraceful, wilful incompleteness of the adverse-event information collection process. Even the resistance tends to forget that scarifying fact.
Weāve reached the absurd situation where the only serious increase in all-cause mortality is being caused by the very quaxines which are wilfully, deceitfully alleged to be the omnipotent ācureā for what more and more looks like a non-existent āpandemicā. Ycmiu! Yet criminal conspirator scumbags are doing just that. And the poor authority-trusting susceptibles are lapping it all up!
1 Like
Hi folks, I get a heavy sense of deja vue. We are going through the same issues with The Jabs as we did with The Virus. I donāt recall seeing this article here, but it is remarkable in relation to the comparison of all cause mortality in England with the same figures for Northern Ireland - in Northern Ireland there was hardly a bump in the 2020 graph unlike the 2 spikes in England and yet both countries followed exactly the same plan using the same NHS! Go figure, and then wash and repeat for Jabs - we probably canāt see the data!
cheers
2 Likes
āThe main reason for prolonged silence, and introspection, is that I am not sure I can find the truth. I do not know if it can be found anymore. Today I am unsure what represents a fact, and what has simply been made up. A sad and scary state of affairs.ā
Exactly so. Especially for ANY stats. At all. Made up or cropped and shaped at will, to suit the manipulatorsā preferred narrative; without exceptions as far as any of us can be confident. No use trying to āproveā stuff with statsā¦
Excellent post CJ - thanks.
The mortality comparison between England and Northern Ireland is particularly intriguingā¦
Thanks @Rich , I was going to add that there are quite a few btl comments especially on the cautious language used by MK on ivermectin which I share*, this could be out of concern to be pursued yet again by the PTB!
- see this TCW article:
On the comparison of England and Northern Ireland the pre-vaccine part of the graphs do suggest a fundamental issue is missing. As a passing thought I wonder whether we could be looking at issues with the 2019 flu jabs ( some of which came out quite late in the season) which only appeared when those who were jabbed faced a new bug in early 2020 and then later in the year. The ease with which different lots or batches can produce different results was shown up here:
- so if covid vaccines can do this why not flu vaccines?
More questions
cheers
Theyāre now pushing the āSouth African variantā; B112-or-some-other-bullshit.
None of what they are saying has any grounding whatsoever in medical science.
You can only come to the conclusion that the psychos want major civil unrest.
Hi CJ1, thanks for posting this interesting happening.
Regarding his ācautious languageāā¦I concur. Dr Malcom Kendrick has been a good source of critical wisdom on the pandemic, and is followed by many respectful medics. Yet his āreappearanceā post seems subdued.
He admits getting flak just for asking vaccine questions, and then in a thoughtful post omits vaccination - the most pressing issue on which people seek the truth - from his musings.
He also seems to deliberately make himself seen to make a point against HCQ and Ivermectin, albeit not a good one, even a strawman:
āBut the misinformation is equally a problem for those on the other side. Claims are made for the benefits of Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine that simply do not stand up to scrutiny. Yes, I believe both drugs may provide some benefit, but not the claimed 90% reduction in deaths that I have seen trumpeted.ā
Is this a sop to the gooms? In a scenario where Dr K says you canāt get the truth, this seems a very weak attempt to demonstrate counterbalance.
He seems to seek cover under a high bar - far less than 90% reduction could still be extremely useful. Safe treatments with 50% reductions would greatly outperform the vaccine, with its severe drawbacks on several fronts, by miles. This is the kind of truth that could be argued using indisputable evidence; eg, he could point out the absence of any negative studies on hydroxychloroquine used in EARLY treatment for covid.
This is a truth that I was sure he has already found. Indeed a quick look shows that he has pointed out significant benefits from HCQ
Link Distorting science in the COVID pandemic | Dr. Malcolm Kendrick
OTOH, two weeks following this post (Sep 16) Dr Kendrick was writing about the spike protein. Kendrick. has a particular interest in the spike protein, due to his interest in cardiovascular disease, and had in fact written on Jun 3rd about the links between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and cardiovascular disease.
But in this Sep 16 article, COVID-19 | Dr. Malcolm Kendrick
he only mentions the vaccine indirectly:
" It would therefore seem that caution would be required, if you were to find a way to stimulate the creation of trillions of spike proteins within the human body. Caution."
Incidentally, but not coincidentally, he has written a new book on the causes of heart disease. He describes it very well in a more recent blog post, which I recommend as although medical, itās very clearly explained, and I think also likely relates to the spike protein stuff of covid, and covid vaccines:
Link: The enduring mystery of heart disease ā The Clot Thickens | Dr. Malcolm Kendrick
Cheers
2 Likes