Spike damages heart. This is scientifically proven.

a reply to: marg6043

Anything to back up your 4 year claim, then?

a reply to: ZokaIdris

Thank you for that information. I always go to youtube for unbiased, well researched medical information.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: BlueJacket

Yes, I arrived at that conclusion because I m not a gullible fool and I know bs nonsense when I see it.

If you support the claims made by the OP then do please explain why rather than having a pop at me.

You don’t think the scientific method should be applied to the OP?

If you contend the data then show how the data is incorrect. No one will object to you doing so.

a reply to: Dalamax

Sorry, but I'm not going to watch a 37 min video without a decent summary. Did you?

In threads where I find three pages of comments I usually read them to get a feel for the place.

Your post immediately brought my question to mind.

Why do you ask?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Dalamax

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: BlueJacket

Yes, I arrived at that conclusion because I m not a gullible fool and I know bs nonsense when I see it.

If you support the claims made by the OP then do please explain why rather than having a pop at me.

You don’t think the scientific method should be applied to the OP?

If you contend the data then show how the data is incorrect. No one will object to you doing so.

It's not up to the person questioning the data to show proof. It's the OPs job making the claim. Youtube ain't it...

Perhaps a review....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I just go off the summary of the side effects that Pfizer tried to hide.
The effects they listed in their trials...
Here, hopefully it's not too much of an inconvenience to read..lol


APPENDIX 1. LIST OF ADVERSE EVENTS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
1p36 deletion syndrome; 2-Hydroxyglutaric aciduria; 5'nucleotidase increased; Acoustic
neuritis; Acquired C1 inhibitor deficiency; Acquired epidermolysis bullosa; Acquired epileptic
aphasia; Acute cutaneous lupus erythematosus; Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis;
Acute encephalitis with refractory, repetitive partial seizures; Acute febrile neutrophilic
dermatosis; Acute flaccid myelitis; Acute haemorrhagic leukoencephalitis; Acute
haemorrhagic oedema of infancy; Acute kidney injury; Acute macular outer retinopathy;
Acute motor axonal neuropath y; Acute motor-sensory axonal neuropathy; Acute myocardial
infarction; Acute respiratory distress syndrome [Note by Celia Farber: "that sounds like
'Covid 19'."]; Acute respiratory failure; Addison's disease; Administration site thrombosis;
Administration site vasculitis; Adrenal thrombosis; Adverse event following immunisation;
Ageusia; Agranulocytosis; Air embolism; Alanine aminotransferase abnormal; Alanine
aminotransferase increased; Alcoholic seizure; Allergic bronchopulmonary mycosis; Allergic
oedema; Alloimmune hepatitis; Alopecia areata; Alpers disease; Alveolar proteinosis;
Ammonia abnormal; Ammonia increased; Amniotic cavity infection;
Amygdalohippocampectomy; Amyloid arthropathy; Amyloidosis; Amyloidosis senile;
Anaphylactic reaction; Anaphylactic shock; Anaphylactic transfusion reaction; Anaphylactoid
reaction; Anaphylactoid shock; Anaphylactoid syndrome of pregnancy; Angioedema;
Angiopathic neuropathy; Ankylosing spondy litis; Anosmia; Antiacetylcholine receptor
antibody positive; Anti-actin antibody positive; Anti-aquaporin-4 antibody positive; Anti-
basal ganglia antibody positive; Anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody positive; Anti-
epithelial antibody positive; Anti-erythrocyte antibody positive; Anti-exosome complex
antibody positive; Anti- GAD antibody negative; Anti-GAD antibody positive; Anti-ganglioside
antibody positive; Antigliadin antibody positive; Anti-glomerular basement membrane
antibody positive; Anti-glomerular basement membrane disease; Anti-glycyl-tRNA
synthetase antibody positive; Anti-HLA antibody test positive; Anti-IA2 antibody positive;
Anti-insulin antibody increased; Anti-insulin antibody positive; Anti-insulin receptor antibody
increased; Anti-insulin receptor antibody positive; Anti-interferon antibody negative; Anti-
interferon antibody positive; Anti-islet cell antibody positive; Antimitochondrial antibody
positive; Anti-muscle specific kinase antibody positive; Anti-myelin-associated glycoprotein
antibodies positive; Anti-myelin-associated glycoprotein associated polyneuropathy;
Antimyocardial antibody positive; Anti-neuronal antibody positive; Antineutrophil
cytoplasmic antibody increased; Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody positive; Anti-
neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody positive vasculitis; Anti-NMDA antibody positive;
Antinuclear antibody increased; Antinuclear antibody positive; Antiphospholipid antibodies
positive; Antiphospholipid syndrome; Anti-platelet antibody positive; Anti-prothrombin
antibody positive; Antiribosomal P antibody positive; Anti-RNA polymerase ll antibody
positive; Anti-saccharomyces cerevisiae antibody test positive; Anti-sperm antibody
positive; Anti-SRP antibody positive; Antisynthetase syndrome; Anti-thyroid antibody
positive; Anti-transglutaminase antibody increased; Anti-VGCC antibody positive; Anti-VGKC
antibody positive; Anti-vimentin antibody positive; Antiviral prophylaxis; Antiviral treatment;
Anti-zinc transporter 8 antibody positive; Aortic embolus; Aortic thrombosis; Aortitis; Aplasia
pure red cell; Aplastic anaemia; Application site thrombosis; Application site vasculitis;
Arrhythmia; Arterial bypass occlusion; Arterial bypass thrombosis; Arterial thrombosis;
Arteriovenous fistula thrombosis; Arteriovenous graft site stenosis; Arteriovenous graft
thrombosis; Arteritis; Arteritis
CONFIDENTIAL Page 1
FDA-CBER-2021-5683-0000083

a reply to: Dalamax

Because, and I have read the 3 pages of comments, if a poster links a long video (37 mins in this case) they are supposed to post a decent summary.

They didn't, and I'm at fault?

I don't have time to watch long videos which is why a decent summary is expected.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Not at all. I just call out obvious bs when it's spread on here.

yeah specifically when it has to do with the Vaccine or Covid-19 , other than that you pretty quiet .

Lots of bs gets spread on ATS it does not seem to bother you though

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

No, I post on lots of threads. Maybe you have not paid attention?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

lol... Even if he did post a link you've shown you wont even look at it and automatically know its fake. So what's the point of continuing to try and provoke people if you already know its all fake? Sounds like a waste of energy that could be spent doing something more meaningful. Let me guess because you're here to "deny ignorance" right? Well you just promoted it by saying something is fake without even spending the time to watch the video and saying that you refuse to because op did not give a summary is a lame excuse. MAYBE you shouldn't of added a response? I watched the video and it makes total sense backed by REAL peer reviewed data that you're so keen on. Let me guess.. Now the AHA will be added to the list of "fake news" sites now...

His 4 year claim is part of the "discovery research" in which a vaccine normally takes at least 10 years to develop


Source
I used the WEF's own website for giggles lol.

I'll be looking forward to how you wordsmith your way through this one.

a reply to: tacoman101

Sorry. Apologies for having a different opinion.

No idea what you are talking about her 4 year claim.

"Wordsmith"??! I'll leave that bs to you, as you seem more qualified.

a reply to: olaru12
To be fair, the vid actually just reports on a study about the spike protein and the heart problems it causes in some people. No vid vs vax in it. That spin was added by the OP.

a reply to: Mandroid7
I guess you hadn't figured out that these were things they were looking out for and not actual side effects caused by the vax.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: BlueJacket

Yes, I arrived at that conclusion because I m not a gullible fool and I know bs nonsense when I see it.

If you support the claims made by the OP then do please explain why rather than having a pop at me.

Not a gullible fool?! That’s not a very nice insinuation and it’s also not at all true, is it? There is plenty of evidence showing that the spike protein does serious damage and that the vaccines are promoting spike production in and around many organs it should not. I mean it shouldn’t escape the muscle should it, but it does.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

you asked

Anything to back up your 4 year claim, then?

in a response to

we are in the trials, it will take about 4 more years to see the full impact from the test subjects

and i provided what you asked for... and now you have

No idea what you are talking about her 4 year claim.

huh?

You can have a different opinion that's great! but that does not mean it's correct lol AHA = you

And thank you for doing exactly what i was waiting for you to do.

a reply to: ARM1968

Great.

Then post some evidence for your claim.

a reply to: olaru12

It's not up to the person questioning the data to show proof. It's the OPs job making the claim. Youtube ain't it...

The source is not YouTube. YouTube is the medium used. There's a difference.

The source is the person presenting the data from the study, and of course the study itself.

In this case, I found the presentation believable. We have verified instances of people having sudden, unexplained heart issues shortly after receiving one of the vaccinations. That is sufficient cause to investigate. Now we have a study, published by the American Heart Association, that purports to have discovered a large part of the mechanism involved with these reports. I find no errors that tell me this study was improper... it may be, but I am unable to show it is.

So, you could show false statements by the presenter, point out inconsistencies by the presenter, try and discredit the American Heart Association, try and discredit the researchers who published the study, point out poor methods in the study, point out improper assumptions in the study, point out bad methodology in the study... there are a few dozen arguments that could potentially made to challenge the OP. The fact that it was presented on YouTube is not one of them. YouTube is only the site that hosts the presentation.

A claim was made by the OP, yes. The OP receives the benefit of the doubt. Now it's your turn, if you believe the claims made in the OP or in the video are inaccurate, to show why you believe that.

Do they not teach the scientific method or debate methodology in school any more?

TheRedneck

a reply to: tacoman101

And your evidence is?