But they are showing it is not.
Post YOUR work.
I misremembered that you said a billion. Then looked and saw my 2 billion estimate which I posted the work for. My reluctance to post numbers at the beginning was that they don't mean anything if there's no effect. The effects of a billion of some molecule per ml need to be measured in the tests, or some mechanism elucidatd. Your clotting mechanism was speculative and not backed up with any sources. Just numbers (spike protein numbers comparable to platelet numbers) and nothing else
That's what you'd LIKE to accuse them of doing.
But they were studying the various clotting pathways.
Which means they were also studying whether clotting took place or not.
They would not be mentioning treatments for the clotting in their paper unless they were trying to treat it.
And they're trying to treat it because it's dangerous.
The effects of a billion of some molecule per ml need to be measured in the tests, or some mechanism elucidatd. Your clotting mechanism was speculative and not backed up with any sources.
You're wrong on both counts.
As Dick Feynman said, "if it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
There ARE blood clots being observed among those vaccinated.
So we know they are a problem.
Again you're lying through your foul teeth: because YOU were the one who was jumping up and down and spitting wooden nickels that 60 picogram/ml PROVED the spikes were harmless.
When I pointed out that that concentration meant a billion spike molecules per milliliter of blood, you pivoted and said, "well, you have to prove a mechanism."
No, I don't : because the dangers of the spike aren't inferred based upon a supposed model mechanism, they are directly OBSERVED in those who got the jab: because the jab TELLS your body to produce the spike protein in free form. Real COVID infection tells your body to make whole virus.
The study you misquoted and misinterpreted, was looking for ways to treat the clotting already known to occur.