Days after a leading heart journal issued an expression of concern for a meeting abstract suggesting that vaccines against Covid-19 may cause cardiac damage, its publisher, the American Heart Association (AHA), says it is reviewing how it screens such submissions.
As we reported late last month, “Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning,” was presented at the AHA’s 2021 Scientific Sessions in mid-November and was published in Circulation.
The author was Steven Gundry, a cardiac surgeon by training who now sells dietary supplements on his website. Gundry also sees patients at the Center for Restorative Medicine and International Heart & Lung Institute in California and offers advice on YouTube. (His critics say what Gundry peddles costs much more than it’s worth.)
After an outcry, Circulation flagged the published poster with the following notice:
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.
When we asked Circulation about how the slipshod work made it past reviewers in the first place, we were told by Michelle Kirkwood, an AHA spokesperson, that:
Abstracts are considered preliminary research and represent the beginning of a scientific conversation on the findings, which may then, ultimately, result in a full manuscript published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. … The Association makes no representation or guarantee as to their accuracy or reliability.
We have now received a follow-up email from Kirkwood which indicates that the society is reconsidering how it fulfills its role as gatekeeper. According to Kirkwood:
The standard of practice for developing abstract programming for any scientific meeting is one intended to prompt scientific discourse, not to evaluate scientific validity. The submitting researcher(s) must always attest to the validity of the abstract. Abstracts are then curated by independent review panels – blinded to the identities of the abstract authors – and are considered based on the potential to add to the diversity of scientific issues and views discussed at the meeting. The Association never makes any representation or guarantees as to the accuracy or reliability of abstracts. Statements and conclusions are always solely those of the study authors and do not necessarily reflect the Association’s institutional policy or position.
The Expression of Concern about the abstract will remain in place until a correction is accepted and published.
The Association is currently reviewing its existing abstract submission processes in its ongoing efforts to ensure a robust, inclusive scientific exchange focused on novel ideas to improve patient outcomes and ultimately end heart disease and stroke.
The Association regrets any confusion regarding the Association’s position on COVID-19 vaccines, especially among the lay public who may be unfamiliar with scientific meetings. The American Heart Association itself has been unequivocal in its belief in and support of vaccination as the best available public health strategy to address the pandemic. The American Heart Association continues to fully support the CDC’s COVID-19 vaccination recommendations.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution by PayPal or by Square, or a monthly tax-deductible donation by Paypal to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.
Things like this add fuel to the fire, regardless of how one views the vaccine. If you believe all of the science that shows that mRNA vaccines are safe and effective and our only way out of this pandemic – PROOF – something that said otherwise was deemed “untrue”. If you believe all of the science that shows that mRNA vaccines are experimental and a government conspiracy – PROOF – mainstream organizations and doctors trying to report the truth are being censored. As someone in the middle, just trying to figure out how to approach a risk/benefit analysis for my 10-year-old son with a complex heart defect, who cannot suffer any additional heart damage from COVID or a vaccine, I am left with no choice, but to continue living in isolation. I have trusted the medical community to save my son through 4 open heart surgeries, and we are left confused and bewildered because somehow, all of this has become a political game. This is not a game for us, so we are left with basement school, window visits, grocery deliveries, tons of Lysol, work from home, and constantly checking in on mental health.
Oh this is so sad to hear but I totally feel for you and your confusion. I too am bewildered and have those same two understandings. Depending on the perspective the evidence means different things- constantly. And it is exhausting and confusing. Not knowing what the reality is. I can’t imagine how scary it must be wanting to protect your child with this heart condition. But you are a good person trying to do what’s right and are sacrificing a lot to be there with your family. Hopefully we will know more soon and things will become clearer. Is there a garden you can go out in? It’s important to get some sunlight especially if he is a growing boy. I understand you feel scared but some things are out of our control and I’m not saying be reckless. There are so many things we can’t know. But fresh air and sunlight and hugging a tree and smelling flowers, playing in the soil things like that are so important. I’m sorry you are going through such a challenging and disturbing time and I hope you find ways to entertain each other and remember the joy in living! Maybe you could grow some vegetables in the house? Get the right lighting it could work. Sunlight is important for vitamin d and a stronger immune system. I got sick everytime I went to any social event during the pandemic because I was inside so much and sanitizing so much. So I started sanitizing less and going outside more. I did finally get Covid this Christmas but it was after being out two nights in a row singing at a live jazz jam. Most people were unmasked but supposedly vaccinated. I am not vaccinated but was 31 when I contracted it. I he very mild symptoms fortunately- less than regular flu. I hope it’s gone for good though because also heard that people with mild symptoms can later experience organ failures and heart issues- scary. Then I also hear it’s because of the vaccine or worse in people who have had Covid and then get the vaccine. It’s all so very confusing. I understand your worry. But I was not as careful as I had been when I was performing because I thought everyone is vaccinated and so it must be safe. But some may not have been and one can still have it. I think it was better when you had to have a negative Covid test to enter places. Because with the vaccine you can still have it and pass it on.
Have you thought about getting a pet? I have been cat sitting and it’s really really helped me a lot. I was in physical pain from lack of contact. Only had about 10 hugs in a year from mid 2020 to mid 2021- horrible. The cats help me to release oxytocin which is like the love drug your brain releases from touch. A bit like a dopamine release when you accomplish a task.
Writing and drawing about feelings and creating stories and observing the stories we create are also helpful tools.
I am currently doing a teacher training where I am creating my own workshops and creative classes to help people unblock themselves, let go of their masks and give themselves permission to be their authentic selves and to have authentic connections with others. It’s personal development but done in a fun and playful way- sometimes it can go deep but there is not emphasis on that. It’s more about exploring and joining in. I will be starting my own online classes. Maybe I could create some sort of class for you and your son? What are his interests?
The statement that the American Heart Association believes in vaccination is not a scientific statement but a statement of faith. It is as if the American Heart Association is regarding science as a religion and vaccines as its divinities. Science is not a religion, hence it does not require nor stands on faith. Science stands on empirical evidence alone. Statements of faith in a scientific context are pernicious to science itself and dangerous to society.
Precisely my thoughts. In refuting the abstract the AHA only gives us “our belief”. The data is not there and never has been, to give a full-on robust recommendation of the vaccination as regards its effects on heart issues. It used to be leaning on the safe angle was the default. No more.
The decisions of medical journals should be based on science not the emotions of the public at large.
Maybe the ‘author(s)’ resubmit with fuller data. There’s always a chance
This does look like slipshod work to me.
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.
Craig, it might be worth noting that you are quoting Gundry’s abstract. On first reading, I thought this was something you were presenting. I see this poster is already informing quantum biological semeiotics [sic].