That paper seems like good research to me and explains some of the "microclotting" effects of COVID itself. It has no direct baring on the vaccines, which is why the authors of that preprint don't speculate on, or claim, that the vaccines should be a matter of concern. Quoting the abstract directly:
Why might they come to this conclusion, if the paper shows that "spike proteins produced by the vaccines may cause hypercoagulability"? Because the paper doesn't show that. When you're drawing the opposite conclusions of the professionals who generate the data, that should be your warning sign to take a step back and read more deeply. Professionals aren't perfect, but whether or not the vaccines are safe are at the forefront of everyone's attention right now, it's not an obscure topic they'd just forget to address.
In brief, the difference gap between the findings and what you are claiming it says about the vaccine is this line here:
Spike proteins made by cells as part of the antigen replication process are affixed almost instantly to the cell membrane. The sequence being replicated does not include the S1 trimers, the N protein, or any of the rest of the virus that would allow the antigenic spike protein to wrench itself free in any meaningful quantity. Additionally, the vaccines are not generating unmodified spike proteins, because those spike proteins are shit and rapidly change shape after they affix to the cell membrane. A couple of eggheads "broke" the protein by adding some prolines to stabilize the in its prefusion conformation, which means it never takes the shape that generates the effects that the paper you linked describes. You can read more about prefusion vs postfusion and how the COVID vaccines solved that problem
here.
Meanwhile, the virus will flood your body with spike proteins in detectable quantities, which bind to anything and everything they can and adopt the postfusion conformation as quickly as it can, with the prefuson/postfusion levering process altering whatever they bind to:
In other words, the paper you have linked is talking about spike proteins' effects
outside the cell.
Please, for the love of God, note that I am giving you multiple reasons why this paper claims the opposite of what you thought it might be, not because one reason would not be enough (it is enough) but because I want to demonstrate that this shit is meaningfully complex and there are many different angles by which these things are being considered.
Meanwhile, the VAERS database is incredibly important and useful. It
does not do what you think it does. I tried to explain that to that one faggot and right after I did he went on a tirade about da trollz again to deflect, you can find a more detailed explanation a few pages back. The
VAERS data does not disagree with anything I am saying. You think it does, because you may have been mislead on what VAERS data means, or how it is collected. There is not a 1:1 relationship between deaths and VAERS data. What has changed is how often doctors report deaths to VAERS, not how often people die in general. Antivaxers used to cite this concept all the time, "VAERS underreports, only 1% of deaths following vaccination within a few weeks are reported to VAERS"
Well, doctors aren't underreporting now due to intense public scrutiny and caution about the vaccines... and the rate at which reports for VAERS comes in has shot up. Surprising!
VAERS data is alarming when something
unusual or above population norms is found. It hasn't, with exception to the HIT-like effects of AZ/JnJ, which weren't caught by VAERS (because no one in the US has had AZ/JnJ outside of trials) but instead clinical investigations in Europe. HCP and researchers use it to investigate trends, not draw immediate conclusions.
No, these long ass posts are because I'm responding to other people, usually multiple. You could have just skipped to the bottom and read the part where I made fun of people bragging about hating to read while simultaneously claiming to be enlightened antivaxers who don't care about ignorant trollz.
