STORY UPDATED: check for updates below.

No Proof

Does Dr. Vernon Coleman share medical proof that the COVID-19 jab is murder? No, that's not true: A headline makes the claim he has medical proof the COVID vaccine is "murder," but Coleman never uses the word murder in his video about the SARS-CoV-2 shot. He does cite a study that he claims has the evidence that the COVID vaccines should be stopped. That study has not been peer-reviewed and had, as of November 24, 2021, been tagged with an "expression of concern," signifying the editors are weighing serious challenges to the paper's content.

The claim appeared as a video (archived here) published by Bitchute on November 23, 2021, under the title "FINALLY! MEDICAL PROOF THE COVID JAB IS "MURDER" - DR. VERNON COLEMAN - NOV. 22, 2021." It opened:

It's the 22nd of November, 2021 and this is the moment when the jabbing has to stop.

Nowhere in the three-minute video does Coleman use the word "murder" nor does he offer any medical proof that the COVID vaccine is murder. He cites the study, "Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning," which was published on November 8, 2021, in Circulation. Its About page says:

Circulation publishes original research manuscripts, review articles, and other content related to cardiovascular health and disease, including observational studies, clinical trials, epidemiology, health services and outcomes studies, and advances in basic and translational research.

Circulation is a reputable journal operated by the American Heart Association, but for this article all that is available is a summary labelled an "abstract." Normaly, that would be the summary at the top of a peer-reviewed article or a draft shared with colleagues in what is called a "pre-print. There are no citations or references to other studies attached to the short summary and no tables of data or other charts. Lead Stories has reached out to the editors of Circulation for an explanation of these inconsistencies in presentation.

Formal scientific publication includes full public access to data and methodology, which editors send to competing and equally expert peers in advance of publication. Peer review is, in ideal cases, when errors in everything from math to logic are spotted and can be corrected, strengthening the final version of the paper, which is then subjected to rigorous editing by journal staff who are often experts in the field.

Coleman refers to the conclusion of the abstract, which is:

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.

Coleman claims at 2:12 in the video, "Now we have the evidence we need to stop the jabbing programs." And at 3:24 in the video he claims, "I've said all along that this jab was an experiment certain to kill and injure. ... Now the evidence exists that must stop this experiment."

The abstract does not make claims of death from the COVID vaccine nor does it assert that the COVID vaccines should be halted, only that their preliminary experiment shows an increase in "endothelial inflammatory markers and ACS risk," following the second dose of the mRNA vaccines, which are listed as Pfizer and Moderna.

The author of the study, Dr. Steven Gundry, sells nutrition supplements and other health aids that have been challenged by mainstream doctors. Lead Stories has previously debunked false claims made by Coleman regarding the COVID vaccine.

Gundry's article has been flagged by the editors of the journal, as the following screenshot shows.

(Source: ahajournals.org screenshot taken Wed Nov 24 at 21:56:13 2021 UTC)

The expression of concern cites numerous potential problems with Gundry's article:

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.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors describes an "Expression of Concern" as an interim step after an article has been challenged by peer scientists. It may lead to retraction/withdrawal, although it can also be removed if the editors' investigation determines the concerns were unfounded.