Posted on 07/25/2021 10:39:10 PM PDT by RandFan
Here’s the conclusion from the link.
You might find it more readable.
CONCLUSION
Scanning electron-and fluorescence microscopy revealed large dense anomalous and amyloid masses in whole blood and PPP of healthy individuals where spike protein was added to the samples. Mass spectrometry confirmed that when spike protein was added to PPP, it interacts with plasma proteins, resulting in fibrin(ogen), prothrombin and other proteins linked to coagulation, to become substantially resistant to trypsinization, resulting in less fragments. Flow analysis confirmed that microclots may impair blood flow. Here we suggest that, in part, the presence of spike protein in circulation may contribute to the hypercoagulation in COVID-19 positive patients and may cause severe impairment of fibrinolysis. Such lytic impairment may be the direct cause of the large microclots we have noted here in SEM and fluorescence microscopy, and previously in plasma samples of COVID-19 patients (Pretorius et al., 2020, Venter et al., 2020).
A lie, and not even a particularly good lie.
Just a week ago, Paul reiterated "he has no plans to get vaccinated because he already contracted COVID." He was the first Senator to acquire COVID.
I’ll send you a butthurt report form for having the nerve to be surprised that I called your bluff.
Dear Freeper see posts 29, 81 and 89.
My last chemo was December, 2020 and I survived my vacs. Lucky Rand that he survived COVID-19 and lucky me.
“I’ll send you a butthurt report form for having the nerve to be surprised that I called your bluff.”
Are you referring to your cut and paste job that contains all of the “may happens?”
“microclots may impair blood flow”
“the presence of spike protein in circulation may contribute to the hypercoagulation”
“may be the direct cause of the large microclots”
A lot of “mays” there. Which is not a surprise because the header of the paper actually includes this warning for readers:
“This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.”
Oops. How did you miss that, sparky? Well of course you didn’t. It’s just more of your usual practice of misrepresenting studies.
Here’s how the publisher describes what their warning means:
What is an unrefereed preprint?
Before formal publication in a scholarly journal, scientific and medical articles are traditionally certified by “peer review.” In this process, the journal’s editors take advice from various experts—called “referees”—who have assessed the paper and may identify weaknesses in its assumptions, methods, and conclusions. Typically a journal will only publish an article once the editors are satisfied that the authors have addressed referees’ concerns and that the data presented support the conclusions drawn in the paper.
Because this process can be lengthy, authors use the medRxiv service to make their manuscripts available as “preprints” before certification by peer review, allowing
other scientists to see, discuss, and comment on the findings immediately. Readers should therefore be aware that articles on medRxiv have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community.
We also urge journalists and other individuals who report on medical research to the general public to consider this when discussing work that appears on medRxiv preprints and emphasize it has yet to be evaluated by the medical community and the information presented may be erroneous.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.05.21252960v1.full-text
You’re such a cretin.
“may this” and “may that” is typical for the non-hard disciplines like biology and medicine.
The preprint warning is boilerplate to cover their ass with the lawyers.
Doctors got tired of physics having rapid access to breaking studies without having to wait for peer review.
Hence medRxiv.
You pro-jab clowns are getting desperate.
Does this include the J and J vaccine? As I understand it JJ doesn’t use the mRNA process but the more traditional vaccine procedure of using dead virus. Would JJ be more ‘safe’?
t cell test
https://www.t-detect.com/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.