A November 2021 abstract was published in the Journal Circulation titled, Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning

This abstract, with a warning, was published with an “Expression of Concern” as a way to alert readers of a potential problem within the article.

The final sentence of the abstract which appears at the beginning of the paper is as follows –

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.

An Expression of Concern

Anyone who read the abstract title might have an expression of concern that looks something like this:

Facial expressions are one thing that journal editors cannot control. But they do try to. 

In academic writing, there is a special Committee of Publication Ethics that work with special Retraction Guidelines to determine when expressions of concern’ are appropriate to use in lieu of retraction. The main guidelines are:

• When retractions are not appropriate.
• There is no reason to doubt the validity of findings.
• The main findings of the work are still reliable.
• An editor has inconclusive evidence to support retraction, or is awaiting additional information.
• Author conflicts of interest have been reported to the journal after publication, but in the editor’s view these are not likely to have influenced interpretations or recommendations or the conclusions of the article.

‘Evidence of harm’ is a good reason to keep a scientific article in print, and should be listed among the reasons for an “Expression of Concern.”  However, in a political climate of censorship, many scientific articles are retracted for anything that goes against the official narrative. For now, the editors of the journal Circulation are keeping the abstract in print with the added “concern:”

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.

Science or Scientism?

The fact that the Circulation abstract is still in print means that none of the criteria for retraction have yet been met, and the title stands as factual. Thinkers must read between the lines. The ‘expression of concern’ represents a form of disclosure. Ironically, the Expression of Concern cited, “potential errors,” “typographical errors” and “no data in the abstract” as the main reasons. However, abstracts are summaries, and therefore, not meant to contain hard data, which is the purpose of an article.

The journal purposely does not print the article which demonstrates “observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.”

By not protecting and sharing scientific evidence openly, politicians and scientists risk being replaced by Technocrats. According to author Patrick Wood, “The Technocrat is unsympathetic to politicians and political institution” and “less concerned about social justice.” 

What if, instead, politicians and scientists had taken the time to study and observe direct, severe health effects of an experimental medical product before mass deployment in the world population? Instead of experimenting on the population? What if the truth that Covid19 had no effects on deaths in the U.S., had been disclosed early on?

In fact, the FDA did compile a working 27-page draft list of COVID vaccine side effects prior to the rollout COVID-19 vaccine(s), stating “there may be limited information available at licensure on level and duration of effectiveness.”  In science, the words “may”and “potential” make impossible any precision or accuracy. The message is nonspecific and open to interpretation by others who write the new narrative.

Science or Scientism? 

Patrick Wood, author of “Technocracy Rising” defines Scientism:

The priests of global pandemic “science” peer into the future and tell us that hundreds of millions of people are certainly going to die. The only way to save yourself is to do exactly what they tell you to do: wear a mask, nay, two or three masks, deny all social contact with family and friends, shut down unessential economic activity, etc. What was originally a 14 day exercise to simply “flatten the curve” has now intentionally morphed into a never-ending cascade of pseudo-scientific instructions and demands.

Trust the Science. Obey the priests. Don’t listen to anyone or anything else.

Scientism specifically and pointedly rejects all other sources of truth that cannot be discovered by its priesthood of scientists and engineers. Thus, philosophy is out. The Bible is out. Religion in general is out. Anything that does not fit their narrative is out.

Evidence of Harm

While reports of COVID deaths in adults and in school children escalate in a post-pandemic world, there is oddly never any mention of vaccination status.

In fact, there are few places that provide a comprehensive list showing evidence of harm from the miracle injection rushed to market by world governments suddenly working together in unison. One such list is compiled by retired UK doctor Vernon Coleman who is asking others to question what they hear. 

Indeed, many people have questioned the promises made early on, even as they were being made. But what happens now? When officials purposely do not provide any follow-up answers to fill the void, there can only be rhetorical questions… 

• Where are the “flattened” curves after the deployment of injections?
• Why must people “booster” their injection every 6 months, or whenever a new variant is named, like a flu shot? 
• Why do people continue to wear ineffective masks that do more harm than good?
• How long will the facade play out on ‘the world stage?’ Is ‘all the world is a stage?’
• Has Scientism replaced science as a new religion?
• Is the pandemic a distraction of fear to replace natural rights and freedoms?
• Is the 5G frequency network one reason for the COVID 3rd wave? 
• Have politicians and scientists been converted to Technocrats? 
• Are we long past of the point of an Expression of Concern?

British doctor Vernon Coleman compares the current human crisis to the fable of The Boiling Frog Principle in The Water Is Boiling:

…the story goes that if you drop a frog into a pan of boiling water the frog will jump out whereas if you put the frog into a pan of cool water and then slowly turn up the heat, the hapless frog will not realise what is happening and will be boiled to death.

In fact it is, when you think about it, a pretty silly fable. Frogs are not stupid and if the water becomes uncomfortably hot the frog will jump out.

Like the frog in the fable, most people have just lain there as the water has got hotter and hotter. Only in our case it is our entire world that is changing – not the temperature of the water in a saucepan. Gradually, bit by bit, we are losing all our natural-born freedoms, all our God-given rights and all the human dignity that was promised us by the US Constitution, the Magna Carta, the Constitution of France and so forth.