Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Big Tech Censors Science: Twitter Slaps Warning Label On American Heart Association Abstract

Big Tech Censors Science: Twitter Slaps Warning Label On American Heart Association Abstract

Twitter lackeys know more about heart health than the American Heart Association. Wrap your mind around that one.

Twitter is at it again. Apparently, they “science” better than actual scientists who study heart health and the possible heart-related risks associated with the WuFlu vaccines.

Self-inflated Twitter brats are now censoring reports on an as yet not peer-reviewed paper presented at the recent American Heart Association (AHA) meeting.

People are getting banned by Twitter (and YouTube) for sharing the link to this AHA abstract. The concluding quote on the abstract appears to be causing the most angst by the “scientists” at Twitter:

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.

Warnings and concerns about thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other heart issues seemingly linked to the vaccines came to prominence when mountain biker Kyle Warner shared his career-ending experience with post-vaccine pericarditis, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

Additionally, the FDA issued a warning about heart problems connected to the vaccines, and the Centers for Disease Control have an entire page devoted to the issue.

But Twitter gate-keepers of all things sciencey know better than victims, the FDA, and the CDC.

The Epoch Times reports:

On Thursday, Twitter applied a warning label to a post of a study abstract from the American Heart Association website AHA Journals that expresses concern over mRNA vaccines and heart disease.

. . . . A link to the abstract was posted on Twitter on Thursday by Marina Medvin, a trial attorney and opinion columnist. The post was flagged by Twitter’s system for screening and disclaiming content perceived as harmful.

When attempting to open the link, one is redirected to another Twitter page with the warning: “this link may be unsafe.”

Previously, this warning system was only used in the case of spam, malware risks, and other deceptive means of soliciting clicks or information. However, its scope has been expanded to include “violent and misleading content that could lead to real world harm” and “certain categories of content that, if posted directly on Twitter, are a violation of the Twitter rules.”

Needless to say, people have thoughts:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Conservative Beaner | December 5, 2021 at 6:32 pm

Snafu

Forget Twitter. Post on Gab.com

Rumble just went public on Nasdaq

Colonel Travis | December 5, 2021 at 7:20 pm

The American Heart Association isn’t sure of the research itself, it could very well be a bullshit study
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001051

I don’t know who to trust for anything any more. I’ve never seen such irrationality all over the place in my life.

    The bottom line is that the Covid jabs are a new thing so we can’t possibly know the long term effects.

      Stuytown in reply to Dennis. | December 6, 2021 at 9:02 am

      True, Dennis. But we do know the long term effects of dying from COVID. Place your bets.

        BLBeamer in reply to Stuytown. | December 6, 2021 at 9:19 pm

        I hope someone will do a study that will reveal what percentage of vaccine users died from complications tied to the jab, so we can compare it to the 0.3% death rate of covid.

        My wife is high risk for covid mortality, so we go the shots, but she has heart disease, I will be very pissed if the shot ends up killing her.

    The links between heart problems and the vaccines are well-documented, as I note in this article. It was just a paper presented at AHA, such panels are where scientists share their work with their peers and develop their ideas and research; they aren’t published, peer-reviewed articles.

    Shutting down any discussion that questions the safety of the vaccine is a serious (and very ANTI-science) issue with Big Tech. They cannot be the gatekeepers of whether or not a study that hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed is BS or not. Let the information flow, give people access to what’s being said/studied/reported, and let them judge for themselves what is BS and what is not. Twitter is the last entity on earth to make that decision for anyone. That is the real point here, not whether or not the article is BS.

    Frankly, no one would even know about this study outside the the AHA and assorted academics/cardiologists/scientists if Twitter just let it be shared. The Streisand Principle bites the anti-science narrative once again.

      Colonel Travis in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | December 5, 2021 at 8:44 pm

      Yes, I was just saying what the AHA says. I agree with you about everything here. It’s extremely frustrating. The UK just issued a warning about heart problems.

      https://tinyurl.com/mr3vkedn

      Twitter has no business censoring legitimate scientific publications. They are not qualified, being subjective rather than objective. Given the censoring of anything anathema to the left, they should come clean and indicate on their front page and sign ups that they are decidedly and unapologetically leftist/socialist, and any editorial positions they take are heavily biased. Fakebook is no different. These self appointed “gatekeepers” need to be either forced to allow free speech as an open forum, or make the notes indicated above.

      Twitter and fakebook: stop pretending that you are unbiased and doing this for “our own good.” You are leftist hacks.

      The gatekeepers have become guards on a new Iron Curtain.

        Publisher or platform? Twitter thinks that they can abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too.

        SuddenlyHappyToBeHere in reply to Dimsdale. | December 6, 2021 at 9:58 am

        You should have stopped your post after writing “Twitter has no business censoring.”

      What I’ve been from European health reports addressing the mystery of why so many athletes are dropping dead or passing out on the field is that these vaccines reduce the blood’s capacity to absorb oxygen. That worries me personally since I run 40-50 miles per week and I am 68 years old (112 metric). I am operating at the peak of what my respiratory and circular systems can deliver to my muscular demand for oxygen.

      I operate at about 46 VO2 max which puts me in the top 3% of my age group. Professional cyclists operate at between 90 to over 100 (thanks to PEDs I am sure) which is super-human. Their sleeping heart rates can dip below 20 BPM which is why so many of them die in their sleep and so wear monitors to alert them to get up and hop on the stationary bicycles to get the HRs up. For them to get vaxxed is risking death.

      This is not a mystery. These non-vaccines ARE the problem and I’d just as soon risk taking a bullet than getting jabbed. And I wish Trump would stop crowing about the “miracle vaccine that he created”. It’s not political with me nor with most people.

      daniel_ream in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | December 6, 2021 at 1:54 pm

      They cannot be the gatekeepers of whether or not a study that hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed is BS or not

      And they aren’t. Twitter doesn’t control the global DNS infrastructure, the fiber backbones, or the AHA’s hosting provider. Soi-disant conservatives’ refusal to learn how the Internet works leads to this hilarious misconception that The Internet is only four web sites.

      Twitter’s policies can’t affect you if you don’t use Twitter.

        Hollymon in reply to daniel_ream. | December 7, 2021 at 6:37 pm

        I’ll have another helping of dis-ingenuity, please. I don’t use Twitter or any social media and never have. It’s not that Twitter threatens me; it threatens everyone. I do not believe that “the internet is only four web sites,” you condescending jerk. Look who’s calling who “soi disant.”

        The reason why folks are so worried about a bunch of multi-billionaire oligarchs who can effectively control published speech in America and think that it’s their job to decide for the nation what can and cannot be read by Americans is that they’re bunch of multi-billionaire oligarchs who can effectively control published speech in America and think that it’s their job to decide for the nation what can and cannot be read by Americans.

        Simple enough for ya, Danny?

    healthguyfsu in reply to Colonel Travis. | December 5, 2021 at 10:47 pm

    This was always going to be messy…particularly when they decided to allow pre-peer review publications for COVID.

    It’s super duper messy and really messes with faith in scientific studies.

    What Twitter is doing is somewhat laughable but what the scientific journals have done to damage credibility in this era is worse IMO.

    Jawbreaker in reply to Colonel Travis. | December 6, 2021 at 12:09 pm

    This is an abstract printed in a journal supplement for study presented at professional meeting attended by, you know, PROFESSIONALS. We have any idea if the attendees (were there any) lauded the author, shouted them down from the podium or just threw tomatoes and cabbage.
    Anyone linking to or tweeting about this abstract (including the AHA as they have appeared to have done after the fact) should provide a disclaimer indicating that either this article is not vetted by peer review processes and may likely be complete hyperbolic bullshit or that the poster/tweeter knows little or nothing about scientific method, statistical relevance and deductive reasoning and may well be a hyperbolic bullshitter.

    Wise_Jedi in reply to Colonel Travis. | December 6, 2021 at 1:22 pm

    But conservatives balk at the idea of forcing privately owned entities to host content on a platform they pay for.

smalltownoklahoman | December 5, 2021 at 7:46 pm

Like we didn’t have enough of a problem with heart disease in the U.S. before Covid and the vaccine!

The Japanese have found an extremely concerning link between both pfizer and moderna and heart/vascular/clot issues. The J&J vaccine association with female menstrual issues and young female blood clotting issues that even our Department of Health suggest women under 40 select another vaccine.

IMO it’s not what Twitter is labeling/suppressing but that they are labeling/suppressing. At some point their market position won’t save them from being weaponized into a propaganda machine. Look at what happened when they changed their guidelines for doxx. Immediately the prog who routinely doxx the right were subjected to the same sort of complaint/suspension/deletion universe that the right deals with daily.

I’m heartened by all this.

Nothing punches home the fact that Twitter is nothing but a clownshow, like watching it pour greasepaint on itself, incident after incident after incident.

They already have a long rap sheet of issues they banned as fake news which turned out to be true. I’m sure someone has a list. And as time goes on, they just make that list longer and longer. It’s all unforced errors, and it makes them look more and more sus as time goes on.

Let Twitter keep doing this, and call them out every time. They’re not doing anything but destroying their own credibility.

    Yes, ideally Twitter will self-abort on the preponderance of cognitive dissonance, but people… persons also have a Choice if it remains viable.

Senator Ron Johnson Says Many Americans Died From Covid Because Fauci ‘Sabotaged Early Treatment Using Cheap, Available, Generic Drugs’

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/senator-ron-johnson-says-many-americans-died-covid-fauci-sabotaged-early-treatment-using-cheap-available-generic-drugs/

    Yes, this matches the outcomes across jurisdictions. Notably in India, where an outbreak in a poor, densely populated state was controlled with general distribution of Ivermectin. In Spain, where seniors with multiple comorbidities, across two care facilities, received early anti inflammatory and antibiotic treatments, resulting in zero hospitalizations and deaths. The massive failure in America can be attributed to planned parent/hood, masks (e.g. petri dish and collector effects) in the general population, collateral damage from lockdowns, denying and stigmatizing early, effective, safe, inexpensive treatments, and silent spread from the general distribution of non-sterilizing “vaccine(s)” with excessive adverse events.

The adverse events caused by the non-sterilizing “vaccine(s)” have been reproduced and confirmed through diverse clinics globally and published in peer reviewed journals. The problem with the mRNA variants is that they force durable effects, so when they fail, or worse, the damage is progressive. The “vaccine(s)” are wholly not suitable for general distribution, especially when there is less than 1% risk in the general population from the Wuhan variant, and greater than 6% risk to the full vaccinated across cohorts from its variants.

I’m a physician scientist. In her story, Fuzzy correctly identifies the AHA text to be an ‘abstract’.

For those of you who aren’t academics and clued in as to how we communicate, an abstract is a presentation at a meeting (international, national, local, intramural). The meetings that sponsor abstracts do so as a way to get scientists and others together to talk about the latest research and knowledge. Some meetings (I’ve done abstracts for the American Thoracic Society meetings, which may have > 5,000 such communications) have many abstracts.

Here’s how it works: by a certain date, usually five months or so ahead of the meeting, one submits abstracts. These are short (usually < 400 words) preliminary communications of new findings, research, clinical issues, etc. The meeting has one or more 'program committees', made of volunteer scientists in the society, who gather, organize and judge the abstracts. A big meeting might have a hundred or more categories. Once sorted, the judging decides which abstracts are 'most' meritorious and end up in coveted presentation slots, and which end up in larger group sessions. They judge, everyone is notified, and you the scientist go to the meeting to present your abstract either as a 'poster' (3 x 6 foot panel with all your work on it) or as a powerpoint presentation. Depends on the meeting.

What's important here is that NONE of the abstracts are 'peer reviewed' in the way a biomedical journal would do. They are simply judged on merit, interest, 'buzz', etc. I've been on program committees, and the 400 words you get in a preliminary communication isn't enough to decide scientific validity. That validity actually is judged at the meeting itself; people walk by your poster or listen to your talk and decide for themselves what they think. Further, the work may change significantly between the time (remember, ~5 months ahead) you submit the abstract and the time you present the work at the meeting. It may change more between the meeting and the time you submit a paper that describes the work to a journal for review. But there's no 'peer review' until you actually submit the paper.

With that in mind, this particular abstract may be spot-on, or it may be complete horse-hockey. The abstract doesn't give you enough to know for sure, and it's not supposed to — the job of the abstract is to help the programmers at the meeting decide where and how to slot the work at the meeting.

So don't read too much into it one way or the other. It might be seminal, it might be worthless. No way to know right now.

    The Pedant-General in reply to stevewhitemd. | December 6, 2021 at 3:02 am

    In which case this sort of censorship is particularly insidious – it will restrict the discussion of this topic before it gets anywhere. It’s properly disgraceful

    nordic_prince in reply to stevewhitemd. | December 6, 2021 at 6:28 am

    There was a British study that supported the same conclusions as this abstract, which strengthens its theory.

    https://www.medicalbrief.co.za/mrna-vaccines-may-pose-acute-coronary-syndrome-risk-us-study/

    alaskabob in reply to stevewhitemd. | December 6, 2021 at 11:21 am

    The abstract is a summation with discrete sections….an abridged review with brief discussions on intent, methodology, findings and conclusions. The entire paper can then go through “peer review”….but that also means potential “peer censorship”. There are times, as now, where case reports would be valuable but the fallout from party line could be damaging. Witness groups of physicians demanding revocation of medical licenses for not towing the mainline protocols.

    Thanks, Steve! I realize now that I should have provided this explainer in my post. I have a blind spot when it comes to academia because I was immersed in it for decades and forget that not everyone knows how some of this stuff works re: conferences/meetings, abstracts, peer-review, publications, &etc. Appreciate the assist. 🙂

    MajorWood in reply to stevewhitemd. | December 7, 2021 at 5:55 pm

    But where are we in this story. Did someone pick up on it when the abstract book came out, or has it been presented at the meeting?

There are two different meanings to the word “science.” Twitter is protecting the business of science which is about money and is based on dogma. We seem to be arguing about the philosophy of science which is about the process to obtain knowledge and determine what is true through open discussion and debate. They are unrelated except for the word “science” that it used in both cases. The establishment will always defend the business of science as that is where their paychecks come from. So, when you see or hear “science” or “scientist,” consider whether you are taking about the business or the philosophy.

paracelsus: If government were to do this, we’d all be screaming 1st Amend, but when Corp/Tech does it, to whom do we scream? on what basis?

The First Amendment protects the right of private entities, including Twitter and Legal Insurrection, to control their forums. On the other hand, you are free to “scream” at Twitter if you like.

nordic_prince: There was a British study that supported the same conclusions as this abstract, which strengthens its theory.

Well, no. There is an established link between myocarditis and mRNA vaccines. That doesn’t mean the particular claims in the abstract are properly supported.

Fuzzy Slippers: Twitter lackeys know more about heart health than the American Heart Association.

As you invoked the American Heart Association as an authority, this is what they say on the matter:

“Soon after publication of the above abstract in Circulation, it was brought to the American Heart Association Committee on Scientific Sessions Program’s attention that there are potential errors in the abstract. Specifically, 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.

“We are publishing this Expression of Concern until a suitable correction is published to indicate that the abstract in its current version may not be reliable.”

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001051

While MRNA technology has been around for a while, it has NEVER, EVER been used in humans – EVER – until the unleashing of this shot cocktail. In addition, it is NOT a vaccine as the TRUE definition of a vaccine (contrary to what the CDC now want you to think) eradicates the disease it is designed for. This shot does in no manner, shape, or form do that. You can still contract Covid AND transmit it to others, as well as be hospitalized up to and including die. This shot also is creating serious adverse events in far too many individuals ( whether the mainstream media and so-called purporters of “science” want to admit) that, once upon a time, would have pulled any other shot experiencing such effects right off of the market! PLUS, there is absolutely no one who knows, and no way at this point in time to know what the potential long-term side effects may be years down the line caused by this shot.

It is NOT A VACCINE. It is NOT EFFECTIVE and it is NOT SAFE – period.

    DelightLaw1: In addition, it is NOT a vaccine as the TRUE definition of a vaccine (contrary to what the CDC now want you to think) eradicates the disease it is designed for.

    Two shots of the polio vaccine are only 90% effective.

    The influenza vaccine is typically only 40-60% effective.

    So you might claim that the flu shot is not a Real Vaccine™. However, Jonas Salk, the developer of the polio vaccine, also developed the first vaccine against influenza. Do you think that he may, perhaps, have known what constitutes a vaccine? See Salk et al., Protective Effect of Vaccination Against Induced Influenza B, The Journal of Clinical Investigation 1945.

    alaskabob in reply to DelightLaw1. | December 6, 2021 at 11:24 am

    It also created an environment not dissimilar to what is used for “gain of function”.

Using Twitter is like cracking open your skull and letting a bunch of progressives shit in your brain.

Lysenkoism is becoming more popular with our self-anointed moral and intellectual betters.

Surprised LI didn’t cover the eruption over Twitters new policy of not posting someone’s photo w/out their permission.

The rule was intended to silence conservatives, but instead conservatives who had been getting doxxed and trolled by the left starting reporting the Leftists who had been going around calling anyone and everyone they disagree with “Hate groups” and White Supremists.

Twitter reinstated their Moaist brethren repeatedly only to have them reported again minutes later. So Twitter is now in a position with a hard policy (not subjective to say- that photo is me AND you do not have my permission to post this) for which it will attempt to only enforce against conservatives. How will this NOT land them in court?

    daniel_ream in reply to Andy. | December 6, 2021 at 1:59 pm

    How will this NOT land them in court?

    Because as Milhouse keeps trying to point out to the denizens of this blog, what you want the law to be and what the law actually is are often disjoint sets.

    The correct question is “how could this possibly land them in court”. What law have they broken? What contract has been breached?

      How could it land them in court?

      Let’s see… we state we have a POLICY. You know, like a “return policy” at Nordstrom’s that lets you return something after you buy it from them… THEN Nordstrom’s turns around and doesn’t let you return shit after you buy it. It’s like a POLICY saying we won’t sell your personal info and then turn around and sell your name, address, and phone number and justify it by saying it was already out there, so we didn’t violate you.

      Of course they will weasel out of some instances with excuses, but much like the California LGBTQ groomers at California schools, if you are going to do shit that you don’t want to get called out for or held accountable for… you don’t put in writing.

      They literally nailed themselves to a cross.

      oh and the irony is they had ZERO self awareness that leftists are biggest doxxers and purveyors of personalized destruction on the planet. Cancel culture is their reason for turning oxygen into carbon dioxide. So for it to blow up on them is collosally hillarious.

      So it is quite a story.

    We did; you can read Mary’s post on it here: https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/twitters-new-media-policy-includes-removing-some-private-photos-videos-of-people-without-permission/

    I also offered some snark on it in a Quick Hit (in which LI authors share our thoughts about issues of the day and/or share what we’re up to–be sure to sign up for the LI newsletter if you haven’t already: https://legalinsurrectionfoundation.salsalabs.org/misignupform/index.html 😉

      The original story was on the policy coming into effect… which as we all speculated was to silence conservatives.

      The news is how they got all butt hurt when its blown up in their face. Since it’s Twitter they are likely doing their best to obfuscate it and be slow to respond to complaints about their comrade’s accounts. But it’s obvious since conservatives are going to hold them to this policy it will be painful for them and their remaining SJW pretending to be journalists. Lets face it- most conservatives have long abandoned Twitter as it has no value for any rational person’s daily life. it’s pretty much there for people who are spoiling to sling poison. I don’t know a single person in my world that uses it.

      So the poison slingers- both on the left and right are going to battle this one out and since will hurt the SJW owners of uphill side of this unlevel playing field most it will make for very juicy new in the weeks and months to come- IF they don’t just abandon it as unenforceable.

Twitter is just a volcano of nonsense anyways. What difference does it make what they censor? This latest example is just one more reason to encourage folks to abandon Twitter before their heads turn into mush.

    All we need is one place to go. Right now, the right are spread out everywhere (Gab, Gettr, Parler, and etc.). Options are good, but one reason Twitter still works is that it’s the ONLY such place people go, so everyone is there (except those of us who left voluntarily or were banned). Instagram and FB are different than Twitter, and we have our versions (MeWe, Rumble, etc.), but I was never really big on those formats.

    Twitter I loved back in the day before the shadowbanning and suppression of/banning of conservatives. Parler was doing great, and then it got pulled and just hasn’t been able to recover. So I’m still waiting for that one place we all go. I hear President Trump has something in the works, so hopefully, that will pan out. 😉

What did anyone expect after they censored the President of the United States? Twitter has nothing positive to contribute to our society.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode