Rep. Nancy Mace Brings the Fire When Questioning Ex-Twitter Chief Legal Officer Over COVID Censorship
“What makes you think you or anyone else at Twitter have the medical expertise to censor actual, accurate CDC data?”
In the GOP Oversight hearing, Part 1: Twitter’s Role in Suppressing the Biden Laptop Story, questions the witnesses on their censorship of doctors and CDC data.
Rep. Nancy Mace: You’re not a doctor, right?
Vijaya Gadde, Former Twitter Chief Legal Officer: No, I’m not.
Rep. Nancy Mace: What makes you think you or anyone else at Twitter have the medical expertise to censor actual, accurate CDC data?
Vijaya Gadde, Former Twitter Chief Legal Officer: I’m not familiar with these particular situations.
Rep. Nancy Mace:: Yeah, I’m sure you’re not.
.@RepNancyMace: You're not a doctor, right?
Gadde: No I'm not.
Mace: What makes you think you or anyone else at Twitter have the medical expertise to censor actual, accurate CDC data?
Gadde: I'm not familiar with these particular situations.
Mace: Yeah, I'm sure you're not. pic.twitter.com/GJaoVwAoGu
— MRCTV (@mrctv) February 8, 2023
🔥 @RepNancyMace TORCHES Twitter Executives: "You guys censored Harvard educated doctors, Stanford educated doctors, doctors that are educated in the best places in the world and you silenced those voices." #ampFW pic.twitter.com/QNsUVyVDO9
— FreedomWorks (@FreedomWorks) February 8, 2023
Twitter censored doctors from Stanford and Harvard for sharing truthful information about COVID-19.@RepNancyMace calls out former Twitter employees for larping as medical experts and silencing views that don't fit with the mainstream narrative. pic.twitter.com/AK0J35ha0O
— Oversight Committee (@GOPoversight) February 8, 2023
We wrote about the Twitter Files and How Twitter Rigged the COVID Debate. We also wrote about how the Twitter Files vindicated Andrew Bostom, a Rhode Island physician and researcher with an impressive CV who was suspended on Twitter after tweeting a link to a peer-reviewed article from a reputable science journal about possible negative effects on sperm from the Covid-19 vaccine.
You can watch the hearing here:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“…Because the FBI told us to”
The only correct answer. And if Mace can get her to say that, she’s on a VP ticket.
Nancy Mace speak with forked-tongue:
https://www.redvoicemedia.com/2021/11/rino-two-face-nancy-mace-busted-pushing-two-very-different-covid-messages-hours-apart-video/
Just pictures a Haley-Mace ticket. Yech.
I actually wasted my time at the link and going to what she was saying. She doesn’t speak with “forked tongue”. That link doesn’t say what you think it says and with competent reading skills you would realize that. As for Mace, I don’t know her from most other people in Congress.
The link headline is clickbait. She’s clearly pro-vax and pro-mask, but on the Fox show she expressed that she was also pro natural-immunity, if you already had it. The two are not incompatible. Factually wrong, perhaps, but perfectly consistent with each other.
The FBI only did that because of the campaign cash Pfizer and Moderna we’re giving the Democrats and their bureaucrat acolytes.
And where did the FBI go to medical school?
Classmates with Dr Evil?
Stanford.
Please don’t promote the grandstanding efforts of a GOPe backstabber.
Mace seems to believe there is an overarching ‘Q’ conspiracy directing anti establishment views and opposition to the establishment.
Well, if we really are victims of a “divide and conquer” conspiracy to keep us at each other’s throats, you can’t do it by steering just one of the two sides, not even the much, much stupider one.
Even though she is right, I’m troubled by the implication that the problem is these were “experts” from “prestigious” universities and such. You shouldn’t get to censor me, either, even though I’m not a prestigious doctor or otherwise “expert”.
absolutely correct
I’m just as concerned that she thinks that the stuff coming out of CDC was accurate.
Twitter is a private company, and if it genuinely believes you are misleading its readers, whom it exists to serve, then it has no obligation to host your words on its platform. The question Mace is asking is where did anyone at Twitter get the sheer hide to imagine that they knew better than these recognized experts in their fields, and could confidently label what they were saying as misinformation? A normal person would have said “Experts are debating this question, we should carry both sides’ arguments and evidence, and not get between them”.
As for the CDC data, nobody disputes it, and certainly Twitter is estopped from questioning it since it promoted the CDC as the word of God in Heaven, so why did it think it right to block someone for publishing that very same CDC’s data?
“As for the CDC data, nobody disputes it,”
Plenty of people dispute all kinds of “CDC data”, including plenty of people with credentials, plenty of active researchers, plenty of medical practitioners, and plenty of folks who are all three.
I was listening just this morning to a practicing research MD with two current appointments using both of his active board certifications taking apart one chunk of BS “data” after another from the CDC. To be fair, it wasn’t just CDC “data” he went after.
What has that got to do with the price of fish in China? Or with the CDC data we are discussing here? Nobody has disputed them. Therefore they must be presumed accurate.
Which CDC data? I don’t see any references to specific CDC data in comments or article here. How about you point to the undisputed CDC ‘rona data you’re referring to?
The article above, and the questioning it quotes refer to some CDC data suppressed — the quotes say “censored” — by Teh Twit. If that’s what yr referring to, suppressing seems pretty dispute-y to me. Meanwehile, they’re arguing about that particular data, including its validity. “Disputing”, even.
What has that got to do with the price of fish in China?
The general price of fish in China is going up. Analogous to CDC ‘rona data is generally disputed. Name a fish and it’s a different conversation.
This particular rhetoric game is tedious.
I binge watched an international array of medical luminaries debunk the party line. This was in the very early days before they were all cancelled. What amazed me was how their lesser lights, everyday doctors and nurses, either bought in to the nonsense or incuriously acquiesced with few qualms.
Was at a doc the other day. She’s still wearing a mask although not everyone is doing so. She told me last year she’d read all the studies and thought I should get the clot shot.
Still a pure blood today.
Same with my doctor. Excellent doc, but he’s a liberal and oblivious to anything not said on CNN.
CDC pushed one view of the issue only and suppressed all legitimate other views with the aid of social media .That is censorship 101
As a private company, they do have a right to say, “we will not share this opinion because we disagree with it.” However, being a private company does not allow them to state that the opinion is dangerous disinformation. That gets pretty close to defamation and fraud. Furthermore, if their opinion is based on governmental intimidation, it is a clear 1st Amendment violation. There were 4 despicable creatures sitting at that table.