Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension

More stealth damage from mRNAs shots?

Also available on Substack – Come and join the conversation with open comments

In Jan 2021 Yuichiro Suzuki and Sergiy Gychka, two scientists from Georgetown University, Washington DC, published an article which reviewed a number of studies in animals, including their own work.

These raised a number of concerns, leading the authors to suggest that:

“…we need to consider their long-term consequences carefully, especially when they are administered to otherwise healthy individuals as well as young adults and children.”

One particular concern related to this observation:

“It was found that the treatment of cultured primary human pulmonary artery smooth muscle cells (SMCs) or human pulmonary artery endothelial cells with the recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 subunit is sufficient to promote cell signaling without the rest of the viral components”.

The specific concern was that this might ultimately cause a condition called Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (“PAH”). 

As the authors state:

“PAH is a serious disease without a cure that can affect males and females of any age including children. The increased pulmonary vascular resistance in PAH results in right heart failure and subsequently death.

Patients diagnosed with PAH only live for 2–3 years from the time of diagnosis on average if untreated. Even with currently available therapies, only 60–70% of PAH patients survive for three years. PAH is hard to detect because its symptoms (e.g., shortness of breath, fatigue, and dizziness) are similar to those of other common non-life threatening conditions, and the official diagnosis for PAH must be made through invasive right heart catheterization.”

The anatomy of the human vasculature makes the lungs a very likely target for substances injected into the human body, which rapidly enter the venous circulation. The venous blood passes through the right side of the heart, into the pulmonary arterial circulation and then into the microvasculature of the lungs.

The lipid nanoparticles (originally envisaged as a means of carrying cancer drugs to their targets) are designed to pass through lipid membranes enabling cell entry. Hence, contrary to assertions made by the Regulators to the effect that the injected substance would be broken down entirely at the injection site, widespread distribution throughout the body is actually inevitable; this is regardless of whether or not the injection is made into muscle tissue, or inadvertently into a small blood vessel (per Marc Giradot’s bolus theory), though it may happen more quickly in the latter case, resulting in more damage.

At this point it is worth recalling the principle mode of action of these products as outlined in this article (substack version here), which, notably, involves cells which are “transfected” by mRNA being immediately destroyed by the body’s own immune system, and, as well as this being an inflammatory process in itself, the LNPs themselves are also pro-inflammatory.

It is well established that fibrotic and autoimmune conditions of the lung can cause PAH (see here for example), so it is not hard to see how the rapid delivery of a large amount of LNP / mRNA product into the micro-vasculature (small blood vessels) of the lungs could also cause PAH, since the common factor is lung damage resulting in the restriction of normal blood flow to the lungs.

Fast forward more than 2 years later to September 2023, and one of the authors of the above (Yuichiro Suzuki), together with 2 others, have published a paper in a journal called Diseases containing 2 case reports of previously healthy middle aged males developing PAH.

In both cases, the patients developed symptoms soon after their 2nd dose of the Pfizer Covid vaccine.

  • Case 1 (a 49 year-old physician) presented with “fatigue, flu-like symptoms, tachycardia, palpitations, orthostasis, right-sided chest pressure and dyspnea on exertion” 3 weeks after injection.
  • Case 2 (56) presented with “sudden onset fatigue, flu-like symptoms and dyspnea on exertion 12 days after injection.

Notwithstanding that Case 1 improved substantially (the paper is less clear about the progression of functional status of Case 2), the authors point out that:

“..the gravity of the diagnosis is difficult to convey. Even “mild” pulmonary hypertension is considered incurable. It is usually progressive and, for many, a terminal diagnosis.”

The authors point out that following the onset of PAH, the right side of the heart may “adapt” (increasing its pumping force), which may result in a relief from symptoms.  However, such relief may prove temporary, as the right ventricle is unable to cope long-term with such an increased demand.

A good account of how and why this occurs can be found here.

These cases do, therefore, raise some significant and more generalisable concerns:

  • The presentation may be insidious and  – with tiredness and breathlessness being the main symptoms – could easily be confused for what is assumed to be “post-covid” respiratory symptoms.
  • It is possible, therefore, that some cases of poor exercise tolerance, breathlessness or persistent tiredness after mRNA injection, labelled by many as “long covid”, could actually be early PAH.
  • If seen by respiratory physicians (rather than cardiologists) PAH may go undiagnosed. It is to be noted that Case 1 is a physician, and so would have had greater knowledge and access to diagnostic services.
  • Right-sided adaptation and symptom improvement may mask the underlying pathology and hence delay or prevent a correct diagnosis. It is possible that a temporary dip in performance reported by many athletes (who would be very attuned to such changes) actually represents mild PAH followed by such adaptation.
  • The long-term prospects for patients with PAH whose symptoms are relieved by such a mechanism are not clear.
  • The 2 cases reported here were after only the 2nd dose, but the risks of the condition presumably increase with each dose, and many people have received (and are still receiving) several further doses – in some cases up to a total of 7 or even 8 injections.

Following private correspondence with the authors (who have consented to me indicating the same), it is clear that they share these concerns.

Could this, then, be yet another example of a condition which starts off as being regarded as very rare, but one which, once the medical community has acknowledged and recognised its possibility, is found in increasing numbers?

At HART, we have written extensively on the topic of myocarditis, which, as we predicted, is now being acknowledged as more common and more serious than previously acknowledged. (this article – substack version here – cites all the articles we have written to date on the topic.)

The last few weeks has seen the publication of a number of highly significant papers pointing to much more widespread cardiac injury than has been officially acknowledged – raising the possibility of harm having been caused to those who did not seek medical attention after injection. 

To take just 2 examples:

  • This series of autopsies performed by Harvard pathologists, published in Nature. The most significant finding related to the 12 patients dying within 30 days of vaccination. Since each heart has 2 ventricles, 24 were examined. No vaccine was found in the 17 ventricles without myocardial injury, but vaccine WAS found in 4 of the 7 ventricles which had evidence of myocardial injury.
  • This elegant study in Radiology of around 1000 (700 vaccinated, 300 not) patients in Japan undergoing PET scans for non-cardiac reasons – mainly cancer investigations – is highly suggestive of cardiac harm from mRNA even in those not reporting any cardiac symptoms.  See this substack article about it.

The phrase “the gift that keeps giving” springs to mind in relation to the mRNA vaccines, although this doesn’t adequately reflect the potential seriousness of the situation for humanity.

Please follow and like us:
Visit Us