Well, yes, the spike protein induces an immune response. That's the entire purpose of using it as an antigen in a vaccine. If you don't see the daylight between that and your original claim that 'saturating the body with spike protein' which gets uptaken in tissue in the heart as metabolic substrate which then results in myocarditis, I don't know what to say.
You misquoted him twice; he said "The spike protein RNA vaccine saturates the body" and clarified he was referring to the response mechanism of the vaccine by saying "the vaccine saturates", which you referred to in the first sentence of the comment I'm replying to. It seems like you two are discussing the same thing, as a third party.
I don't think I'm misrepresenting them even if I paraphrased. The vaccine doesn't saturate the body, and there's no evidence the heart is subject to these side effects due to lipid vesicles being uptaken from circulation because the heart uses them as substrate. Then to not leave any doubt, they cite McCullough on the topic who is way off the rails beyond available evidence.
Your second sentence seems like the most promising path to helpful discussion. It sounds like you're saying the Khan preprint is wrong because of an association with McCullough, but I don't know the name and it doesn't appear in the study (I haven't listened to the podcast.) I'm sure there's more to what you mean by disagreeing with the mechanism the other user proposed.
"Moderna's (MRNA.O) COVID-19 vaccine is up to four times more likely to cause inflammation of the heart muscle, a very rare side effect, than its rival vaccine from Pfizer-BioNTech (PFE.N)"
