Abstract 10712 is an abstract published in a circulation of the American Heart Association Journal, November 8, 2021 by Steven R Gundry. “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.”


I’ve included the entire Abstract. It’s not long. The AHA expressed concern with the Abstract with an: “Expression of Concern.” I’ve also included the AHA Expression of Concern in full.

After this Abstract was published, a “whistleblower” from the United Kingdom contacted Dr. Aseem Malhotra and gave him information that researchers at a “very prestigious British Institution” were prevented from publishing their research that mirrored Abstract 10172.

Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning.

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.

EXPRESSION OF CONCERN: Expression of Concern: Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning This article expresses concern regarding abstract “Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning” 

This article expresses concern regarding abstract “Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning” which originally published November 8, 2021; https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712. 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.

This is a common defense against anything that is critical of vaccines. No matter how obvious the truth is, there is something always wrong with any evidence or theory that is critical of vaccines. Only the “trusted” researchers can determine these things. The trusted researchers never do the research. The media says that the right studies haven’t been done yet, and that existing studies are inadequate to challenge anything related to King Pharma. Pharma, of course, refuses to fund the appropriate and necessary studies, and even in this case, uses their financial power to censor existing information on heart attack risk associated with mRNA vaccines. For reference on Pharma not funding the most obvious and helpful studies that are in the public’s best interests, see Merck’s February 2021 response to information that their off-patent product Ivermectin had been curing COVID for going on a year. They said there was inadequate research, instead of funding adequate research which should have begun in early spring 2020 at the latest. I wrote briefly about Merck and Ivermectin here.

The following video was uploaded to Youtube on November 25, 2021. In it, Dr. Aseem Malhotra discusses his concerns with the information in Abstract 10712. He acknowledged that more research is required to confirm results- but he also noted that that very type of research was being censored from publication in the United Kingdom. I’ll quote the Doctor below the video because I want a written record of key statements he made in case youtube decides to delete this link.

Covid: Report reveals increase in risk of heart attack following the mRNA COVID vaccine

Dr. Aseem Malhotra: “What this abstract has shown, what this research has shown, is that markers associated with increasing the risk of heart attack, and probably even progression of underlying heart disease in people who’ve already got some heart disease, there’s significantly increased risk from 11% at 5 years, risk of heart attack, to 25%. Now that’s a huge increase. If this is true, then it’s very concerning indeed. But in medicine, in good science, we never rely on one study. We need to replicate these findings. However, what I will share with you today, on GB News, is a few days ago after this was published, somebody from a very prestigious British Institution, Cardiology Department researcher, a whistleblower if you like, contacted me to say that researchers in this department had found something similar within the coronary arteries, linked to the vaccines, inflammation from imaging studies, around the coronary arteries. And they had a meeting. These researchers decided at the moment they’re not going to publish their findings because they are concerned about losing research money from the drug industry. Now this person was very upset about it”

I wonder what “very prestigious British Institution” would do this type of research? Hopefully the “whistleblower” isn’t done with his whistle yet.

Dr. John Campbell recently discussed what “increased Endothelial Markers” means:

“Imagine that’s an artery supplying part of the heart muscle with blood, the myocardium. And that’s going to divide into smaller arteries. And these smaller coronary arteries will supply an area of cardiac tissue with blood. … Now the endothelium is the lining of these blood vessels, so that is the vascular endothelium that’s referring to. And inflammatory markers can lead to inflammation in this endothelium. .. which of course we don’t want, because acute coronary syndrome is really an inflammatory disease. … Because if there’s increased inflammatory activity here, this can cause destabilization of what we call plaques… , these cholesterol-based plaques here. And if these become destabilized, that can cause blood to clot. “

CW