COVID Vaccine Inrease Risk of Heart Inflammation?

21,233 Views | 474 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by RD2WINAGNBEAR86
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

BearFan33 said:

D. C. Bear said:

BearFan33 said:

Here is the problem I see.

I have no idea whether the abstract is good or not. But the fact of the matter is a medical person cannot publish anything anti-vaccine without being tarred, feathered and run out of town. It shouldn't be that way.

Being even skeptical publicly about the vaccine is putting medical professionals at great personal and professional risk and that shouldn't be the case.

If they meet the standards, such abstracts and articles should be published, examined, discussed and, if appropriate, criticized by the leaders in the field. It's always been that way up to the age of covid.


I did not comment on it at first because I also had no idea if it was good or not as I had not looked in to it.

If you read the links, however, it becomes apparent that the poster abstract is not good.

This poster's author was not being tarred, feathered and run out of town because he published something anti vaccine. He was being criticized because what he published appears to have been garbage. Amazing to me how some of the same people who are quick to tell us to "follow the money" as it relates to vaccines and "Big Pharma" are quick to latch on to a third-rate poster from a guy whose primary business seems to be marketing dietary supplements.
The mob is gathering.

With that a said there are legit criticisms of the abstract. But there are also people investigating and doxing the person/people behind the abstract like what they did was a crime.

Physicians are being threatened with loss of medical license in some states for prescribing alternative therapies. I have seen the warnings.

This is not how its supposed to work.
Saying there are "legit criticisms of the abstract" is kind of like saying Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein had some issues with women.
You do have a flair for the melodramatic.
BearFan33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

BearFan33 said:

D. C. Bear said:

BearFan33 said:

Here is the problem I see.

I have no idea whether the abstract is good or not. But the fact of the matter is a medical person cannot publish anything anti-vaccine without being tarred, feathered and run out of town. It shouldn't be that way.

Being even skeptical publicly about the vaccine is putting medical professionals at great personal and professional risk and that shouldn't be the case.

If they meet the standards, such abstracts and articles should be published, examined, discussed and, if appropriate, criticized by the leaders in the field. It's always been that way up to the age of covid.


I did not comment on it at first because I also had no idea if it was good or not as I had not looked in to it.

If you read the links, however, it becomes apparent that the poster abstract is not good.

This poster's author was not being tarred, feathered and run out of town because he published something anti vaccine. He was being criticized because what he published appears to have been garbage. Amazing to me how some of the same people who are quick to tell us to "follow the money" as it relates to vaccines and "Big Pharma" are quick to latch on to a third-rate poster from a guy whose primary business seems to be marketing dietary supplements.
The mob is gathering.

With that a said there are legit criticisms of the abstract. But there are also people investigating and doxing the person/people behind the abstract like what they did was a crime.

Physicians are being threatened with loss of medical license in some states for prescribing alternative therapies. I have seen the warnings.

This is not how its supposed to work.
Saying there are "legit criticisms of the abstract" is kind of like saying Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein had some issues with women.
The abstract may prove to be absolute crap. But my point is when the forum for debate gets closed prematurely or closed without debate, the public health is at a great risk.
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearFan33 said:

D. C. Bear said:

BearFan33 said:

Here is the problem I see.

I have no idea whether the abstract is good or not. But the fact of the matter is a medical person cannot publish anything anti-vaccine without being tarred, feathered and run out of town. It shouldn't be that way.

Being even skeptical publicly about the vaccine is putting medical professionals at great personal and professional risk and that shouldn't be the case.

If they meet the standards, such abstracts and articles should be published, examined, discussed and, if appropriate, criticized by the leaders in the field. It's always been that way up to the age of covid.


I did not comment on it at first because I also had no idea if it was good or not as I had not looked in to it.

If you read the links, however, it becomes apparent that the poster abstract is not good.

This poster's author was not being tarred, feathered and run out of town because he published something anti vaccine. He was being criticized because what he published appears to have been garbage. Amazing to me how some of the same people who are quick to tell us to "follow the money" as it relates to vaccines and "Big Pharma" are quick to latch on to a third-rate poster from a guy whose primary business seems to be marketing dietary supplements.
The mob is gathering.

With that a said there are legit criticisms of the abstract. But there are also people investigating and doxing the person/people behind the abstract like what they did was a crime.

Physicians are being threatened with loss of medical license in some states for prescribing alternative therapies. I have seen the warnings.

This is not how its supposed to work.

It could be that you perceive mob mentality because critics of the vaccines are so dead wrong, literally, in anything they post.

And the OP is by an antivaxxer so it shouldn't be surprising that he only has petty/snide 1liners to what the medical community says about his study he found perusing Russian propaganda articles.

Props to him for finding garbage the American Heart Association published.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

BearFan33 said:

D. C. Bear said:

BearFan33 said:

Here is the problem I see.

I have no idea whether the abstract is good or not. But the fact of the matter is a medical person cannot publish anything anti-vaccine without being tarred, feathered and run out of town. It shouldn't be that way.

Being even skeptical publicly about the vaccine is putting medical professionals at great personal and professional risk and that shouldn't be the case.

If they meet the standards, such abstracts and articles should be published, examined, discussed and, if appropriate, criticized by the leaders in the field. It's always been that way up to the age of covid.


I did not comment on it at first because I also had no idea if it was good or not as I had not looked in to it.

If you read the links, however, it becomes apparent that the poster abstract is not good.

This poster's author was not being tarred, feathered and run out of town because he published something anti vaccine. He was being criticized because what he published appears to have been garbage. Amazing to me how some of the same people who are quick to tell us to "follow the money" as it relates to vaccines and "Big Pharma" are quick to latch on to a third-rate poster from a guy whose primary business seems to be marketing dietary supplements.
The mob is gathering.

With that a said there are legit criticisms of the abstract. But there are also people investigating and doxing the person/people behind the abstract like what they did was a crime.

Physicians are being threatened with loss of medical license in some states for prescribing alternative therapies. I have seen the warnings.

This is not how its supposed to work.

It could be that you perceive mob mentality because critics of the vaccines are so dead wrong, literally, in anything they post.

And the OP is by an antivaxxer so it shouldn't be surprising that he only has petty/snide 1liners to what the medical community says about his study he found perusing Russian propaganda articles.

Props to him for finding garbage the American Heart Association published.
LOL. I guess you figure if you repeat a lie often enough people will begin to believe it.

I am fully vaxxed, as are my kids (sans the COVID vaccine). My son is brain damaged as a result of a vaccine, but is fully vaxxed nonetheless.

But apparently skepticism over a new technology with less than a year of testing gets one labeled anti-vaxx. This is the world we live in. Thanks vax Nazi!
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

D. C. Bear said:

BearFan33 said:

Here is the problem I see.

I have no idea whether the abstract is good or not. But the fact of the matter is a medical person cannot publish anything anti-vaccine without being tarred, feathered and run out of town. It shouldn't be that way.

Being even skeptical publicly about the vaccine is putting medical professionals at great personal and professional risk and that shouldn't be the case.

If they meet the standards, such abstracts and articles should be published, examined, discussed and, if appropriate, criticized by the leaders in the field. It's always been that way up to the age of covid.


I did not comment on it at first because I also had no idea if it was good or not as I had not looked in to it.

If you read the links, however, it becomes apparent that the poster abstract is not good.

This poster's author was not being tarred, feathered and run out of town because he published something anti vaccine. He was being criticized because what he published appears to have been garbage. Amazing to me how some of the same people who are quick to tell us to "follow the money" as it relates to vaccines and "Big Pharma" are quick to latch on to a third-rate poster from a guy whose primary business seems to be marketing dietary supplements.
I haven't seen anyone on this thread who has "latched on" to the abstract authored by the cardiologist. As I said above, I have no idea if his findings are accurate, but it does appear the AHA thought it wasn't "garbage" or they would not have published it. Certainly, none of the critiques I've seen warrant the garbage label, though I understand why some resident experts are quick to label it as such.
Was I talking about "this thread?" No. The fact that this abstract came to the attention of enough people that it get fact checked is prima facie evidence that people latched on to it.

Here is one of the critiques that you said you have read:

"So I graphed the data from the abstract, it doesn't support the claims, basically, the inflammatory markers are not elevated. I could find no independent validation of this test (one site that sells this test claimed 61% predictive utility, not that good even for the intended use"

Here is another:

Antivaxxers are sharing a poster abstract from the
@American_Heart meeting. It might look official, but a poster is never peer-reviewed. And this one is complete crap if you watch it.

"Complete crap if you watch it" warrants the garbage label, or maybe the crap label.

I was not "quick" to label it as anything. I was quick to point out that the NYT and Russian state-controlled media are not really the same thing. I did not label the abstract as garbage until the evidence on it became apparent.

And, one more thing to note:
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001051
"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."

In case you're wondering, that's academic language for "garbage.'

Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Porteroso said:

BearFan33 said:

D. C. Bear said:

BearFan33 said:

Here is the problem I see.

I have no idea whether the abstract is good or not. But the fact of the matter is a medical person cannot publish anything anti-vaccine without being tarred, feathered and run out of town. It shouldn't be that way.

Being even skeptical publicly about the vaccine is putting medical professionals at great personal and professional risk and that shouldn't be the case.

If they meet the standards, such abstracts and articles should be published, examined, discussed and, if appropriate, criticized by the leaders in the field. It's always been that way up to the age of covid.


I did not comment on it at first because I also had no idea if it was good or not as I had not looked in to it.

If you read the links, however, it becomes apparent that the poster abstract is not good.

This poster's author was not being tarred, feathered and run out of town because he published something anti vaccine. He was being criticized because what he published appears to have been garbage. Amazing to me how some of the same people who are quick to tell us to "follow the money" as it relates to vaccines and "Big Pharma" are quick to latch on to a third-rate poster from a guy whose primary business seems to be marketing dietary supplements.
The mob is gathering.

With that a said there are legit criticisms of the abstract. But there are also people investigating and doxing the person/people behind the abstract like what they did was a crime.

Physicians are being threatened with loss of medical license in some states for prescribing alternative therapies. I have seen the warnings.

This is not how its supposed to work.

It could be that you perceive mob mentality because critics of the vaccines are so dead wrong, literally, in anything they post.

And the OP is by an antivaxxer so it shouldn't be surprising that he only has petty/snide 1liners to what the medical community says about his study he found perusing Russian propaganda articles.

Props to him for finding garbage the American Heart Association published.
LOL. I guess you figure if you repeat a lie often enough people will begin to believe it.

I am fully vaxxed, as our my kids (sans the COVID vaccine). My son is brain damaged as a result of a vaccine, but is fully vaxxed nonetheless.

But apparently skepticism over a new technology with less than a year of testing gets one labeled anti-vaxx. This is the world we live in. Thanks vax Nazi!

Forgive me for not keeping up with your vax status. But you're the one continually posting trash antivax articles. This isnt your first one.
BearFan33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html

Personally, I'm provax and recommended it to everyone who asks me.

But I'd like to know how the myocarditis happens (in the unlucky few) as well as why and to what extent. We will never know if people are coerced from researching it.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Mothra said:

D. C. Bear said:

BearFan33 said:

Here is the problem I see.

I have no idea whether the abstract is good or not. But the fact of the matter is a medical person cannot publish anything anti-vaccine without being tarred, feathered and run out of town. It shouldn't be that way.

Being even skeptical publicly about the vaccine is putting medical professionals at great personal and professional risk and that shouldn't be the case.

If they meet the standards, such abstracts and articles should be published, examined, discussed and, if appropriate, criticized by the leaders in the field. It's always been that way up to the age of covid.


I did not comment on it at first because I also had no idea if it was good or not as I had not looked in to it.

If you read the links, however, it becomes apparent that the poster abstract is not good.

This poster's author was not being tarred, feathered and run out of town because he published something anti vaccine. He was being criticized because what he published appears to have been garbage. Amazing to me how some of the same people who are quick to tell us to "follow the money" as it relates to vaccines and "Big Pharma" are quick to latch on to a third-rate poster from a guy whose primary business seems to be marketing dietary supplements.
I haven't seen anyone on this thread who has "latched on" to the abstract authored by the cardiologist. As I said above, I have no idea if his findings are accurate, but it does appear the AHA thought it wasn't "garbage" or they would not have published it. Certainly, none of the critiques I've seen warrant the garbage label, though I understand why some resident experts are quick to label it as such.
Was I talking about "this thread?" No. The fact that this abstract came to the attention of enough people that it get fact checked is prima facie evidence that people latched on to it.

Here is one of the critiques that you said you have read:

"So I graphed the data from the abstract, it doesn't support the claims, basically, the inflammatory markers are not elevated. I could find no independent validation of this test (one site that sells this test claimed 61% predictive utility, not that good even for the intended use"

Here is another:

Antivaxxers are sharing a poster abstract from the
@American_Heart meeting. It might look official, but a poster is never peer-reviewed. And this one is complete crap if you watch it.

"Complete crap if you watch it" warrants the garbage label, or maybe the crap label.

I was not "quick" to label it as anything. I was quick to point out that the NYT and Russian state-controlled media are not really the same thing. I did not label the abstract as garbage until the evidence on it became apparent.

And, one more thing to note:
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001051
"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."

In case you're wondering, that's academic language for "garbage.'


Ah, I see. You're referring to posters who responded to the article with comments and tweets. When I said I read the critiques, I was talking about the article Sam posted, and not the armchair experts who posted tweets in response to the article. It's interesting how much stock you put into them.

The armchair experts are correct and the cardiologist wrong. Got it.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Mothra said:

Porteroso said:

BearFan33 said:

D. C. Bear said:

BearFan33 said:

Here is the problem I see.

I have no idea whether the abstract is good or not. But the fact of the matter is a medical person cannot publish anything anti-vaccine without being tarred, feathered and run out of town. It shouldn't be that way.

Being even skeptical publicly about the vaccine is putting medical professionals at great personal and professional risk and that shouldn't be the case.

If they meet the standards, such abstracts and articles should be published, examined, discussed and, if appropriate, criticized by the leaders in the field. It's always been that way up to the age of covid.


I did not comment on it at first because I also had no idea if it was good or not as I had not looked in to it.

If you read the links, however, it becomes apparent that the poster abstract is not good.

This poster's author was not being tarred, feathered and run out of town because he published something anti vaccine. He was being criticized because what he published appears to have been garbage. Amazing to me how some of the same people who are quick to tell us to "follow the money" as it relates to vaccines and "Big Pharma" are quick to latch on to a third-rate poster from a guy whose primary business seems to be marketing dietary supplements.
The mob is gathering.

With that a said there are legit criticisms of the abstract. But there are also people investigating and doxing the person/people behind the abstract like what they did was a crime.

Physicians are being threatened with loss of medical license in some states for prescribing alternative therapies. I have seen the warnings.

This is not how its supposed to work.

It could be that you perceive mob mentality because critics of the vaccines are so dead wrong, literally, in anything they post.

And the OP is by an antivaxxer so it shouldn't be surprising that he only has petty/snide 1liners to what the medical community says about his study he found perusing Russian propaganda articles.

Props to him for finding garbage the American Heart Association published.
LOL. I guess you figure if you repeat a lie often enough people will begin to believe it.

I am fully vaxxed, as our my kids (sans the COVID vaccine). My son is brain damaged as a result of a vaccine, but is fully vaxxed nonetheless.

But apparently skepticism over a new technology with less than a year of testing gets one labeled anti-vaxx. This is the world we live in. Thanks vax Nazi!

Forgive me for not keeping up with your vax status. But you're the one continually posting trash antivax articles. This isnt your first one.
You could be forgiven if this is the first time I told you that. You must not recall the numerous other posts where you accused me of being anti-vax and I had to correct you, like I did again above. It's happened at least 3-4 times now.

Just FYI, not every article that questions the side-effects of a vaccine is "anti-vax." Let's dispense with the binary thinking.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearFan33 said:

D. C. Bear said:

BearFan33 said:

D. C. Bear said:

BearFan33 said:

Here is the problem I see.

I have no idea whether the abstract is good or not. But the fact of the matter is a medical person cannot publish anything anti-vaccine without being tarred, feathered and run out of town. It shouldn't be that way.

Being even skeptical publicly about the vaccine is putting medical professionals at great personal and professional risk and that shouldn't be the case.

If they meet the standards, such abstracts and articles should be published, examined, discussed and, if appropriate, criticized by the leaders in the field. It's always been that way up to the age of covid.


I did not comment on it at first because I also had no idea if it was good or not as I had not looked in to it.

If you read the links, however, it becomes apparent that the poster abstract is not good.

This poster's author was not being tarred, feathered and run out of town because he published something anti vaccine. He was being criticized because what he published appears to have been garbage. Amazing to me how some of the same people who are quick to tell us to "follow the money" as it relates to vaccines and "Big Pharma" are quick to latch on to a third-rate poster from a guy whose primary business seems to be marketing dietary supplements.
The mob is gathering.

With that a said there are legit criticisms of the abstract. But there are also people investigating and doxing the person/people behind the abstract like what they did was a crime.

Physicians are being threatened with loss of medical license in some states for prescribing alternative therapies. I have seen the warnings.

This is not how its supposed to work.
Saying there are "legit criticisms of the abstract" is kind of like saying Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein had some issues with women.
The abstract may prove to be absolute crap. But my point is when the forum for debate gets closed prematurely or closed without debate, the public health is at a great risk.
The abstract has proven to be absolute crap, and crap "research" like that does damage to the credibility of all research and puts public health at great risk, without regard for what results are found. If a medical researcher came out with solid evidence tomorrow that these vaccines caused a particular problem, a lot of people wouldn't believe it because this "researcher" submitted that crap abstract for a crap poster.
BearFan33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

BearFan33 said:

D. C. Bear said:

BearFan33 said:

D. C. Bear said:

BearFan33 said:

Here is the problem I see.

I have no idea whether the abstract is good or not. But the fact of the matter is a medical person cannot publish anything anti-vaccine without being tarred, feathered and run out of town. It shouldn't be that way.

Being even skeptical publicly about the vaccine is putting medical professionals at great personal and professional risk and that shouldn't be the case.

If they meet the standards, such abstracts and articles should be published, examined, discussed and, if appropriate, criticized by the leaders in the field. It's always been that way up to the age of covid.


I did not comment on it at first because I also had no idea if it was good or not as I had not looked in to it.

If you read the links, however, it becomes apparent that the poster abstract is not good.

This poster's author was not being tarred, feathered and run out of town because he published something anti vaccine. He was being criticized because what he published appears to have been garbage. Amazing to me how some of the same people who are quick to tell us to "follow the money" as it relates to vaccines and "Big Pharma" are quick to latch on to a third-rate poster from a guy whose primary business seems to be marketing dietary supplements.
The mob is gathering.

With that a said there are legit criticisms of the abstract. But there are also people investigating and doxing the person/people behind the abstract like what they did was a crime.

Physicians are being threatened with loss of medical license in some states for prescribing alternative therapies. I have seen the warnings.

This is not how its supposed to work.
Saying there are "legit criticisms of the abstract" is kind of like saying Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein had some issues with women.
The abstract may prove to be absolute crap. But my point is when the forum for debate gets closed prematurely or closed without debate, the public health is at a great risk.
The abstract has proven to be absolute crap, and crap "research" like that does damage to the credibility of all research and puts public health at great risk, without regard for what results are found. If a medical researcher came out with solid evidence tomorrow that these vaccines caused a particular problem, a lot of people wouldn't believe it because this "researcher" submitted that crap abstract for a crap poster.
Maybe that's how it works in the DC medical community. But usually, a researcher puts out a paper. Some people criticize, others repeat the study or do something similar to see if they can verify or dispute the conclusion(s).

There have been problems with abstracts and papers since they started putting them out. Often problems arise with conflicts of interest (like who paid for the research) Over the course of time, however a clear answer usually emerges and that becomes standard of care.

In the present environment that doesn't seem to be happening.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

D. C. Bear said:

Mothra said:

D. C. Bear said:

BearFan33 said:

Here is the problem I see.

I have no idea whether the abstract is good or not. But the fact of the matter is a medical person cannot publish anything anti-vaccine without being tarred, feathered and run out of town. It shouldn't be that way.

Being even skeptical publicly about the vaccine is putting medical professionals at great personal and professional risk and that shouldn't be the case.

If they meet the standards, such abstracts and articles should be published, examined, discussed and, if appropriate, criticized by the leaders in the field. It's always been that way up to the age of covid.


I did not comment on it at first because I also had no idea if it was good or not as I had not looked in to it.

If you read the links, however, it becomes apparent that the poster abstract is not good.

This poster's author was not being tarred, feathered and run out of town because he published something anti vaccine. He was being criticized because what he published appears to have been garbage. Amazing to me how some of the same people who are quick to tell us to "follow the money" as it relates to vaccines and "Big Pharma" are quick to latch on to a third-rate poster from a guy whose primary business seems to be marketing dietary supplements.
I haven't seen anyone on this thread who has "latched on" to the abstract authored by the cardiologist. As I said above, I have no idea if his findings are accurate, but it does appear the AHA thought it wasn't "garbage" or they would not have published it. Certainly, none of the critiques I've seen warrant the garbage label, though I understand why some resident experts are quick to label it as such.
Was I talking about "this thread?" No. The fact that this abstract came to the attention of enough people that it get fact checked is prima facie evidence that people latched on to it.

Here is one of the critiques that you said you have read:

"So I graphed the data from the abstract, it doesn't support the claims, basically, the inflammatory markers are not elevated. I could find no independent validation of this test (one site that sells this test claimed 61% predictive utility, not that good even for the intended use"

Here is another:

Antivaxxers are sharing a poster abstract from the
@American_Heart meeting. It might look official, but a poster is never peer-reviewed. And this one is complete crap if you watch it.

"Complete crap if you watch it" warrants the garbage label, or maybe the crap label.

I was not "quick" to label it as anything. I was quick to point out that the NYT and Russian state-controlled media are not really the same thing. I did not label the abstract as garbage until the evidence on it became apparent.

And, one more thing to note:
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001051
"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."

In case you're wondering, that's academic language for "garbage.'


Ah, I see. You're referring to posters who responded to the article with comments and tweets. When I said I read the critiques, I was talking about the article Sam posted, and not the armchair experts who posted tweets in response to the article. It's interesting how much stock you put into them.

The armchair experts are correct and the cardiologist wrong. Got it.
No, you don't "see." Those quotes are not responses to the article, those quotes are within the article itself.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

It's interesting (and perhaps, telling) that your initial inclination was to attack the messenger.

There are plenty of articles regarding twitter censoring the information in question. A simple google search would have revealed that (see below), if you were concerned the article was posting false info. I am not sure if you read the article, but that's the reason it was posted. The RT article doesn't express concern over American vaccines, but merely talks about the AHA abstract and the twitter censorship.
It's interesting that you chose RT.com and not "plenty of articles" to support your case. You have access to Google, but chose Rt.com. That Putin is a rascal
If you want to engage in an irrelevant ad hominem on RT, you are welcome to it. I don't really care, as long as you don't dispute the substance. It's always easier to attack the messenger, as it takes the focus off the lack of substance in your posts.
No ad hominem, just Wiki facts about rt.com. Wiki doesn't attack your go-to news source. Do you dispute who publishes rt.com?
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearFan33 said:

D. C. Bear said:

BearFan33 said:

D. C. Bear said:

BearFan33 said:

D. C. Bear said:

BearFan33 said:

Here is the problem I see.

I have no idea whether the abstract is good or not. But the fact of the matter is a medical person cannot publish anything anti-vaccine without being tarred, feathered and run out of town. It shouldn't be that way.

Being even skeptical publicly about the vaccine is putting medical professionals at great personal and professional risk and that shouldn't be the case.

If they meet the standards, such abstracts and articles should be published, examined, discussed and, if appropriate, criticized by the leaders in the field. It's always been that way up to the age of covid.


I did not comment on it at first because I also had no idea if it was good or not as I had not looked in to it.

If you read the links, however, it becomes apparent that the poster abstract is not good.

This poster's author was not being tarred, feathered and run out of town because he published something anti vaccine. He was being criticized because what he published appears to have been garbage. Amazing to me how some of the same people who are quick to tell us to "follow the money" as it relates to vaccines and "Big Pharma" are quick to latch on to a third-rate poster from a guy whose primary business seems to be marketing dietary supplements.
The mob is gathering.

With that a said there are legit criticisms of the abstract. But there are also people investigating and doxing the person/people behind the abstract like what they did was a crime.

Physicians are being threatened with loss of medical license in some states for prescribing alternative therapies. I have seen the warnings.

This is not how its supposed to work.
Saying there are "legit criticisms of the abstract" is kind of like saying Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein had some issues with women.
The abstract may prove to be absolute crap. But my point is when the forum for debate gets closed prematurely or closed without debate, the public health is at a great risk.
The abstract has proven to be absolute crap, and crap "research" like that does damage to the credibility of all research and puts public health at great risk, without regard for what results are found. If a medical researcher came out with solid evidence tomorrow that these vaccines caused a particular problem, a lot of people wouldn't believe it because this "researcher" submitted that crap abstract for a crap poster.
Maybe that's how it works in the DC medical community. But usually, a researcher puts out a paper. Some people criticize, others repeat the study or do something similar to see if they can verify or dispute the conclusion(s).

There have been problems with abstracts and papers since they started putting them out. Often problems arise with conflicts of interest (like who paid for the research) Over the course of time, however a clear answer usually emerges and that becomes standard of care.

In the present environment that doesn't seem to be happening.


That abstract wasn't a paper abstract. It was the abstract of a really, really badly done poster designed to sell dietary supplements. It would have received a failing grade in an undergraduate research class and would not have even made it to an undergraduate conference because the professors wouldn't want their students to look like fools. It would have gone unnoticed and unremarked upon in normal times. It was found and promoted on social media as something it was not. It got debunked by those who looked at it closely. The association who had published the abstract added a warning when people who saw the poster pointed out that it was crap. This is not a case of a paper or poster or research article that has "problems" that can be addressed. There is nothing to address. Based on the images of the slides from the presentation, this appears to be a case of research malpractice. Real research is going on, but this isn't an example of it.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

From the American Heart Association:

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712

Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning

Our group has been using the PLUS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences, Inc, Irvine, CA) a clinically validated measurement of multiple protein biomarkers which generates a score predicting the 5 yr risk (percentage chance) of a new Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). The score is based on changes from the norm of multiple protein biomarkers including IL-16, a proinflammatory cytokine, soluble Fas, an inducer of apoptosis, and Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF)which serves as a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue, among other markers. Elevation above the norm increases the PULS score, while decreases below the norm lowers the PULS score.The score has been measured every 3-6 months in our patient population for 8 years. Recently, with the advent of the mRNA COVID 19 vaccines (vac) by Moderna and Pfizer, dramatic changes in the PULS score became apparent in most patients.This report summarizes those results. A total of 566 pts, aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen in a preventive cardiology practice had a new PULS test drawn from 2 to 10 weeks following the 2nd COVID shot and was compared to the previous PULS score drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre- shot. Baseline IL-16 increased from 35=/-20 above the norm to 82 =/- 75 above the norm post-vac; sFas increased from 22+/- 15 above the norm to 46=/-24 above the norm post-vac; HGF increased from 42+/-12 above the norm to 86+/-31 above the norm post-vac. These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. 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.

twitter apparently feels the information is too dangerous for the public to digest:

https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/



I asked my brilliant Baylor grad physician about this last week.

He said the risk of heart damage was far greater from Covid than the booster shot . ( which he and his wife had already taken ).

That was good enough for me .

Got the booster last Wednesday.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

It's interesting (and perhaps, telling) that your initial inclination was to attack the messenger.

There are plenty of articles regarding twitter censoring the information in question. A simple google search would have revealed that (see below), if you were concerned the article was posting false info. I am not sure if you read the article, but that's the reason it was posted. The RT article doesn't express concern over American vaccines, but merely talks about the AHA abstract and the twitter censorship.
It's interesting that you chose RT.com and not "plenty of articles" to support your case. You have access to Google, but chose Rt.com. That Putin is a rascal
If you want to engage in an irrelevant ad hominem on RT, you are welcome to it. I don't really care, as long as you don't dispute the substance. It's always easier to attack the messenger, as it takes the focus off the lack of substance in your posts.
No ad hominem, just Wiki facts about rt.com. Wiki doesn't attack your go-to news source. Do you dispute who publishes rt.com?
Who publishes it is irrelevant. The news was confirmed by multiple sources. Given this fact, it's odd you continue to belabor the point. I'll ask again: do you dispute what it reported or not?

Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Mothra said:

From the American Heart Association:

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712

Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning

Our group has been using the PLUS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences, Inc, Irvine, CA) a clinically validated measurement of multiple protein biomarkers which generates a score predicting the 5 yr risk (percentage chance) of a new Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). The score is based on changes from the norm of multiple protein biomarkers including IL-16, a proinflammatory cytokine, soluble Fas, an inducer of apoptosis, and Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF)which serves as a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue, among other markers. Elevation above the norm increases the PULS score, while decreases below the norm lowers the PULS score.The score has been measured every 3-6 months in our patient population for 8 years. Recently, with the advent of the mRNA COVID 19 vaccines (vac) by Moderna and Pfizer, dramatic changes in the PULS score became apparent in most patients.This report summarizes those results. A total of 566 pts, aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen in a preventive cardiology practice had a new PULS test drawn from 2 to 10 weeks following the 2nd COVID shot and was compared to the previous PULS score drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre- shot. Baseline IL-16 increased from 35=/-20 above the norm to 82 =/- 75 above the norm post-vac; sFas increased from 22+/- 15 above the norm to 46=/-24 above the norm post-vac; HGF increased from 42+/-12 above the norm to 86+/-31 above the norm post-vac. These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. 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.

twitter apparently feels the information is too dangerous for the public to digest:

https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/



I asked my brilliant Baylor grad physician about this last week.

He said the risk of heart damage was far greater from Covid than the booster shot . ( which he and his wife had already taken ).

That was good enough for me .

Got the booster last Wednesday.
To each his own, as it should be.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

It's interesting (and perhaps, telling) that your initial inclination was to attack the messenger.

There are plenty of articles regarding twitter censoring the information in question. A simple google search would have revealed that (see below), if you were concerned the article was posting false info. I am not sure if you read the article, but that's the reason it was posted. The RT article doesn't express concern over American vaccines, but merely talks about the AHA abstract and the twitter censorship.
It's interesting that you chose RT.com and not "plenty of articles" to support your case. You have access to Google, but chose Rt.com. That Putin is a rascal
If you want to engage in an irrelevant ad hominem on RT, you are welcome to it. I don't really care, as long as you don't dispute the substance. It's always easier to attack the messenger, as it takes the focus off the lack of substance in your posts.
No ad hominem, just Wiki facts about rt.com. Wiki doesn't attack your go-to news source. Do you dispute who publishes rt.com?
I'll ask again: do you dispute what it reported or not?
Do you dispute that you went with rt.com (a Russian propaganda organ) as your primary source?
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Canada2017 said:

Mothra said:

From the American Heart Association:

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712

Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning

Our group has been using the PLUS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences, Inc, Irvine, CA) a clinically validated measurement of multiple protein biomarkers which generates a score predicting the 5 yr risk (percentage chance) of a new Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). The score is based on changes from the norm of multiple protein biomarkers including IL-16, a proinflammatory cytokine, soluble Fas, an inducer of apoptosis, and Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF)which serves as a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue, among other markers. Elevation above the norm increases the PULS score, while decreases below the norm lowers the PULS score.The score has been measured every 3-6 months in our patient population for 8 years. Recently, with the advent of the mRNA COVID 19 vaccines (vac) by Moderna and Pfizer, dramatic changes in the PULS score became apparent in most patients.This report summarizes those results. A total of 566 pts, aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen in a preventive cardiology practice had a new PULS test drawn from 2 to 10 weeks following the 2nd COVID shot and was compared to the previous PULS score drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre- shot. Baseline IL-16 increased from 35=/-20 above the norm to 82 =/- 75 above the norm post-vac; sFas increased from 22+/- 15 above the norm to 46=/-24 above the norm post-vac; HGF increased from 42+/-12 above the norm to 86+/-31 above the norm post-vac. These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. 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.

twitter apparently feels the information is too dangerous for the public to digest:

https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/



I asked my brilliant Baylor grad physician about this last week.

He said the risk of heart damage was far greater from Covid than the booster shot . ( which he and his wife had already taken ).

That was good enough for me .

Got the booster last Wednesday.
To each his own, as it should be.
Agreed
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Totally agree.

Any kind of coercion is totally wrong .
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

It's interesting (and perhaps, telling) that your initial inclination was to attack the messenger.

There are plenty of articles regarding twitter censoring the information in question. A simple google search would have revealed that (see below), if you were concerned the article was posting false info. I am not sure if you read the article, but that's the reason it was posted. The RT article doesn't express concern over American vaccines, but merely talks about the AHA abstract and the twitter censorship.
It's interesting that you chose RT.com and not "plenty of articles" to support your case. You have access to Google, but chose Rt.com. That Putin is a rascal
If you want to engage in an irrelevant ad hominem on RT, you are welcome to it. I don't really care, as long as you don't dispute the substance. It's always easier to attack the messenger, as it takes the focus off the lack of substance in your posts.
No ad hominem, just Wiki facts about rt.com. Wiki doesn't attack your go-to news source. Do you dispute who publishes rt.com?
Who publishes it is irrelevant. The news was confirmed by multiple sources. Given this fact, it's odd you continue to belabor the point. I'll ask again: do you dispute what it reported or not?




That's right, who publishes news of something is, eventually, irrelevant if that news turns out to be true. However, while the source doesn't finally determine a story's accuracy, we can make informed judgments about the likely accuracy of a story based on past performance of a source. While I am not particularly concerned with what Russia Today had to say, I will most certainly dispute what you reported.

Your post created the impression that this abstract was research sponsored in some way by the American Heart Association. "From the American Heart Association," you said. It wasn't "from" the American Heart Association. Even though you could have easily found out, you failed to report that the abstract you posted was not only not backed by actual research, but was also based on a half-assed conference poster "from" a dietary supplement salesman who used to be a heart surgeon. And the kicker is that you entirely failed to report what actually was "from" the American Heart Association: that the American Heart Association had placed a warning on the abstract basically saying it should be considered garbage until further notice.
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

clubhi said:

ITT: A bunch of dumb ass losers that are so afraid of vaccines that they didn't take 30 seconds to research all the other medicines they take that can cause heart inflammation.
And yet another one makes an appearance.

Like moths to a flame...
Humck's sock puppet
jupiter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

COVID-19 (coronavirus): Long-term effects
COVID-19 symptoms can sometimes persist for months. The virus can damage the lungs, heart and brain, which increases the risk of long-term health problems.
By Mayo Clinic Staff

Most people who have coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) recover completely within a few weeks. But some people even those who had mild versions of the disease continue to experience symptoms after their initial recovery.
These people sometimes describe themselves as "long haulers" and the conditions have been called post-COVID-19 syndrome or "long COVID-19." These health issues are sometimes called post-COVID-19 conditions. They're generally considered to be effects of COVID-19 that persist for more than four weeks after you've been diagnosed with the COVID-19 virus.
Older people and people with many serious medical conditions are the most likely to experience lingering COVID-19 symptoms, but even young, otherwise healthy people can feel unwell for weeks to months after infection. Common signs and symptoms that linger over time include:
  • Fatigue
  • Shortness of breath or difficulty breathing
  • Cough
  • Joint pain
  • Chest pain
  • Memory, concentration or sleep problems
  • Muscle pain or headache
  • Fast or pounding heartbeat
  • Loss of smell or taste
  • Depression or anxiety
  • Fever
  • Dizziness when you stand
  • Worsened symptoms after physical or mental activities
Organ damage caused by COVID-19

Although COVID-19 is seen as a disease that primarily affects the lungs, it can also damage many other organs, including the heart, kidneys and the brain. Organ damage may lead to health complications that linger after COVID-19 illness. In some people, lasting health effects may include long-term breathing problems, heart complications, chronic kidney impairment, stroke and Guillain-Barre syndrome a condition that causes temporary paralysis.
Some adults and children experience multisystem inflammatory syndrome after they have had COVID-19. In this condition, some organs and tissues become severely inflamed.


https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-long-term-effects/art-20490351
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

It's interesting (and perhaps, telling) that your initial inclination was to attack the messenger.

There are plenty of articles regarding twitter censoring the information in question. A simple google search would have revealed that (see below), if you were concerned the article was posting false info. I am not sure if you read the article, but that's the reason it was posted. The RT article doesn't express concern over American vaccines, but merely talks about the AHA abstract and the twitter censorship.
It's interesting that you chose RT.com and not "plenty of articles" to support your case. You have access to Google, but chose Rt.com. That Putin is a rascal
If you want to engage in an irrelevant ad hominem on RT, you are welcome to it. I don't really care, as long as you don't dispute the substance. It's always easier to attack the messenger, as it takes the focus off the lack of substance in your posts.
No ad hominem, just Wiki facts about rt.com. Wiki doesn't attack your go-to news source. Do you dispute who publishes rt.com?
I'll ask again: do you dispute what it reported or not?
Do you dispute that you went with rt.com (a Russian propaganda organ) as your primary source?


I'm not sure what you mean by primary source. I copied and pasted a link from RT.com based on a google search, after hearing on the radio that Twitter censored the American heart association, if that's what you mean. I know you want to make a big deal out of that, which is both unsurprising and fine.

Now for my question? Do you dispute what the link said or not?
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

It's interesting (and perhaps, telling) that your initial inclination was to attack the messenger.

There are plenty of articles regarding twitter censoring the information in question. A simple google search would have revealed that (see below), if you were concerned the article was posting false info. I am not sure if you read the article, but that's the reason it was posted. The RT article doesn't express concern over American vaccines, but merely talks about the AHA abstract and the twitter censorship.
It's interesting that you chose RT.com and not "plenty of articles" to support your case. You have access to Google, but chose Rt.com. That Putin is a rascal
If you want to engage in an irrelevant ad hominem on RT, you are welcome to it. I don't really care, as long as you don't dispute the substance. It's always easier to attack the messenger, as it takes the focus off the lack of substance in your posts.
No ad hominem, just Wiki facts about rt.com. Wiki doesn't attack your go-to news source. Do you dispute who publishes rt.com?
Who publishes it is irrelevant. The news was confirmed by multiple sources. Given this fact, it's odd you continue to belabor the point. I'll ask again: do you dispute what it reported or not?




That's right, who publishes news of something is, eventually, irrelevant if that news turns out to be true. However, while the source doesn't finally determine a story's accuracy, we can make informed judgments about the likely accuracy of a story based on past performance of a source. While I am not particularly concerned with what Russia Today had to say, I will most certainly dispute what you reported.

Your post created the impression that this abstract was research sponsored in some way by the American Heart Association. "From the American Heart Association," you said. It wasn't "from" the American Heart Association. Even though you could have easily found out, you failed to report that the abstract you posted was not only not backed by actual research, but was also based on a half-assed conference poster "from" a dietary supplement salesman who used to be a heart surgeon. And the kicker is that you entirely failed to report what actually was "from" the American Heart Association: that the American Heart Association had placed a warning on the abstract basically saying it should be considered garbage until further notice.


I realize you're hyper sensitive to any data that is critical of the vaccine, but you really need to do a better job reading before accusing others of painting a false narrative. Your ridiculous assertions are completely erroneous.

The very link I posted - if you had actually read it more closely - stated that Twitter is warning users that the American Heart Association's website may be 'dangerous', after it posted an abstract in one of its own medical journals containing research linking COVID-19 mRNA injections to heart inflammation. The summary was published BY THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION in Circulation, AN AHA JOURNAL on November 16. And contrary to your assertions, the research didn't come from a mere diet supplement salesman (speaking of trying to paint a false narrative) but from a team led by former heart surgeon Steven Grundy - you know the guy you called "garbage"? The "garbage" team applied a heart test to measure a patient's 5-year risk of developing new acute coronary syndrome in vaccinated subjects.

In short, nothing I stated in my original post painted a false or misleading narrative, your erroneous and biased accusations notwithstanding. Whats ironic is the link included in the OP discussed the AHA's critique of the study - you know the very information you've accused me of hiding from readers? That is why the subject of this thread is a question and not a statement. Yet you falsely accuse me of not alerting readers of this fact. Remarkable.

These are simple things you could have verified before making false accusations. In short, you either didn't read what I posted, your reading comprehension sucks, or you're lying. Do better.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Totally agree.

Any kind of coercion is totally wrong .


Yup.

COVID just passed through our house. I'm going on 3.5 weeks since diagnosis. It was very mild for me, thank God. Not even a fever and no lingering issues, except for loss of taste and smell which are finally starting to return. No heart issues. I was very tired for 3 weeks. Felt a bit like mono.

My doctor was aggressive in her treatment. Started me on ivermectin when my wife and oldest son were diagnosed. I was on it for a week prior to my diagnosis. Also had me on high dose vitamin C (2000 mg every two hours), D, zinc and aspirin. When I was diagnosed, she put me on a steroid. Also prescribe a nebulizer treatment and antibodies though I ended up not needing it.

My doctor has now had over 2,200 covid patients. Only one has died and he got to her on day 14 and was already in ICU. She claims none of her patients have any lingering heart issues caused by covid.

In short, there are treatments that can be employed to help fight this illness and it's lingering effects, like heart issues. Other countries employ them, and their death numbers are far better than ours. The problem is we have a govt and health care system that so badly wants to coerce vaccination that it has downplayed and in some instances actively discredited treatments and therapeutics that can help fight this disease. Our health leaders have much blood on their hands.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

D. C. Bear said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

It's interesting (and perhaps, telling) that your initial inclination was to attack the messenger.

There are plenty of articles regarding twitter censoring the information in question. A simple google search would have revealed that (see below), if you were concerned the article was posting false info. I am not sure if you read the article, but that's the reason it was posted. The RT article doesn't express concern over American vaccines, but merely talks about the AHA abstract and the twitter censorship.
It's interesting that you chose RT.com and not "plenty of articles" to support your case. You have access to Google, but chose Rt.com. That Putin is a rascal
If you want to engage in an irrelevant ad hominem on RT, you are welcome to it. I don't really care, as long as you don't dispute the substance. It's always easier to attack the messenger, as it takes the focus off the lack of substance in your posts.
No ad hominem, just Wiki facts about rt.com. Wiki doesn't attack your go-to news source. Do you dispute who publishes rt.com?
Who publishes it is irrelevant. The news was confirmed by multiple sources. Given this fact, it's odd you continue to belabor the point. I'll ask again: do you dispute what it reported or not?




That's right, who publishes news of something is, eventually, irrelevant if that news turns out to be true. However, while the source doesn't finally determine a story's accuracy, we can make informed judgments about the likely accuracy of a story based on past performance of a source. While I am not particularly concerned with what Russia Today had to say, I will most certainly dispute what you reported.

Your post created the impression that this abstract was research sponsored in some way by the American Heart Association. "From the American Heart Association," you said. It wasn't "from" the American Heart Association. Even though you could have easily found out, you failed to report that the abstract you posted was not only not backed by actual research, but was also based on a half-assed conference poster "from" a dietary supplement salesman who used to be a heart surgeon. And the kicker is that you entirely failed to report what actually was "from" the American Heart Association: that the American Heart Association had placed a warning on the abstract basically saying it should be considered garbage until further notice.


I realize you're sensitive to any data that is critical of the vaccine, but you really need to do a better job reading before accusing others of painting a false narrative. Your ridiculous assertions are completely erroneous.

The very link I posted - if you had actually read it more closely - stated that Twitter is warning users that the American Heart Association's website may be 'dangerous', after it posted an abstract in one of its own medical journals containing research linking COVID-19 mRNA injections to heart inflammation. The summary was published BY THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION in Circulation, AN AHA JOURNAL on November 16. And contrary to your assertions, the research didn't come from a mere diet supplement salesman (speaking of trying to paint a false narrative) but from a team led by former heart surgeon Steven Grundy - you know the guy you called "garbage"? The "garbage" team applied a heart test to measure a patient's 5-year risk of developing new acute coronary syndrome in vaccinated subjects.

In short, nothing I stated in my original post painted a false or misleading narrative, your erroneous and biased accusations notwithstanding. Whats ironic is the link included in the OP discussed the AHA's critique of the study - you know the very information you've accused me of hiding from readers? That is why the subject of this thread is a question and not a statement. Yet you accuse me of not alerting readers of this fact. Remarkable.

These are simple things you could have verified before making false accusations. Your reading comprehension either sucks, or you're lying. In either regard, you can do better.


That's simply not true. You original post included an abstract that made a number of claims. Your post claimed it was "from" the American Heart Association. Anyone reading your post would be led to think that this was new information being released by a generally credible source, the American Heat Association. That paints a false and misleading narrative. It would only be by clicking through a couple of links and reading more that they would discover this.

When the content of a post creates one impression about the information (new and important information regarding dangers COVID vaccines from the American Heart Association!) but the link to the primary source of that information shows something very different (American Heart Association attaches warning to bogus poster abstract), that is a textbook example of a post creating a false and misleading narrative. It is what it is.

Everyone makes mistakes. What you should be doing is apologizing for the misleading post instead of doubling down on your error.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Canada2017 said:

Totally agree.

Any kind of coercion is totally wrong .


Yup.

COVID just passed through our house. I'm going on 3.5 weeks since diagnosis. It was very mild for me, thank God. Not even a fever and no lingering issues, except for loss of taste and smell which are finally starting to return. No heart issues. I was very tired for 3 weeks. Felt a bit like mono.

My doctor was aggressive in her treatment. Started me on ivermectin when my wife and oldest son were diagnosed. I was on it for a week prior to my diagnosis. Also had me on high dose vitamin C (2000 mg every two hours), D, zinc and aspirin. When I was diagnosed, she put me on a steroid. Also prescribe a nebulizer treatment and antibodies though I ended up not needing it.

My doctor has now had over 2,200 covid patients. Only one has died and he got to her on day 14 and was already in ICU. She claims none of her patients have any lingering heart issues caused by covid.

In short, there are treatments that can be employed to help fight this illness and it's lingering effects, like heart issues. Other countries employ them, and their death numbers are far better than ours. The problem is we have a govt and health care system that so badly wants to coerce vaccination that it has downplayed and in some instances actively discredited treatments and therapeutics that can help fight this disease. Our health leaders have much blood on their hands.


It seems you are reasoning that other countries' treatment choices have been the cause of lower COVID deaths. Is that your claim?
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Mothra said:

D. C. Bear said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

It's interesting (and perhaps, telling) that your initial inclination was to attack the messenger.

There are plenty of articles regarding twitter censoring the information in question. A simple google search would have revealed that (see below), if you were concerned the article was posting false info. I am not sure if you read the article, but that's the reason it was posted. The RT article doesn't express concern over American vaccines, but merely talks about the AHA abstract and the twitter censorship.
It's interesting that you chose RT.com and not "plenty of articles" to support your case. You have access to Google, but chose Rt.com. That Putin is a rascal
If you want to engage in an irrelevant ad hominem on RT, you are welcome to it. I don't really care, as long as you don't dispute the substance. It's always easier to attack the messenger, as it takes the focus off the lack of substance in your posts.
No ad hominem, just Wiki facts about rt.com. Wiki doesn't attack your go-to news source. Do you dispute who publishes rt.com?
Who publishes it is irrelevant. The news was confirmed by multiple sources. Given this fact, it's odd you continue to belabor the point. I'll ask again: do you dispute what it reported or not?




That's right, who publishes news of something is, eventually, irrelevant if that news turns out to be true. However, while the source doesn't finally determine a story's accuracy, we can make informed judgments about the likely accuracy of a story based on past performance of a source. While I am not particularly concerned with what Russia Today had to say, I will most certainly dispute what you reported.

Your post created the impression that this abstract was research sponsored in some way by the American Heart Association. "From the American Heart Association," you said. It wasn't "from" the American Heart Association. Even though you could have easily found out, you failed to report that the abstract you posted was not only not backed by actual research, but was also based on a half-assed conference poster "from" a dietary supplement salesman who used to be a heart surgeon. And the kicker is that you entirely failed to report what actually was "from" the American Heart Association: that the American Heart Association had placed a warning on the abstract basically saying it should be considered garbage until further notice.


I realize you're sensitive to any data that is critical of the vaccine, but you really need to do a better job reading before accusing others of painting a false narrative. Your ridiculous assertions are completely erroneous.

The very link I posted - if you had actually read it more closely - stated that Twitter is warning users that the American Heart Association's website may be 'dangerous', after it posted an abstract in one of its own medical journals containing research linking COVID-19 mRNA injections to heart inflammation. The summary was published BY THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION in Circulation, AN AHA JOURNAL on November 16. And contrary to your assertions, the research didn't come from a mere diet supplement salesman (speaking of trying to paint a false narrative) but from a team led by former heart surgeon Steven Grundy - you know the guy you called "garbage"? The "garbage" team applied a heart test to measure a patient's 5-year risk of developing new acute coronary syndrome in vaccinated subjects.

In short, nothing I stated in my original post painted a false or misleading narrative, your erroneous and biased accusations notwithstanding. Whats ironic is the link included in the OP discussed the AHA's critique of the study - you know the very information you've accused me of hiding from readers? That is why the subject of this thread is a question and not a statement. Yet you accuse me of not alerting readers of this fact. Remarkable.

These are simple things you could have verified before making false accusations. Your reading comprehension either sucks, or you're lying. In either regard, you can do better.


That's simply not true. You original post included an abstract that made a number of claims. Your post claimed it was "from" the American Heart Association. Anyone reading your post would be led to think that this was new information being released by a generally credible source, the American Heat Association. That paints a false and misleading narrative. It would only be by clicking through a couple of links and reading more that they would discover this.

When the content of a post creates one impression about the information (new and important information regarding dangers COVID vaccines from the American Heart Association!) but the link to the primary source of that information shows something very different (American Heart Association attaches warning to bogus poster abstract), that is a textbook example of a post creating a false and misleading narrative. It is what it is.

Everyone makes mistakes. What you should be doing is apologizing for the misleading post instead of doubling down on your error.
Unfortunately, everything you just stated remains completely erroneous. Perhaps you're not consciously lying, but simply ignorant. It appears you do not understand what kind of organization AHA is.

The AHA does not have a team of doctors it employs to do research and publish studies. It's a nonprofit organization in the United States that funds and/or publishes cardiovascular medical research by outside doctors and scientists. It has a number of journals in which it publishes these studies, including a journal called "Circulation." The AHA did in fact publish this summary in its medical journal, Circulation, on November 16th. If you had actually read the second link I posted in the OP, you would have seen that it says exactly that:

"The abstract of the study looking into a possible correlation between mRNA Covid shots and heart inflammation was published in one of the Association's journals, Circulation, on November 16."

I think the AHA journal that decided to publish this study is indeed credible. Perhaps it made a mistake in publishing the summary of the study and did not properly vet it. Nevertheless, again, everything I said was completely accurate. But I understand your need to lie in order to maintain your narrative..


Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Mothra said:

Canada2017 said:

Totally agree.

Any kind of coercion is totally wrong .


Yup.

COVID just passed through our house. I'm going on 3.5 weeks since diagnosis. It was very mild for me, thank God. Not even a fever and no lingering issues, except for loss of taste and smell which are finally starting to return. No heart issues. I was very tired for 3 weeks. Felt a bit like mono.

My doctor was aggressive in her treatment. Started me on ivermectin when my wife and oldest son were diagnosed. I was on it for a week prior to my diagnosis. Also had me on high dose vitamin C (2000 mg every two hours), D, zinc and aspirin. When I was diagnosed, she put me on a steroid. Also prescribe a nebulizer treatment and antibodies though I ended up not needing it.

My doctor has now had over 2,200 covid patients. Only one has died and he got to her on day 14 and was already in ICU. She claims none of her patients have any lingering heart issues caused by covid.

In short, there are treatments that can be employed to help fight this illness and it's lingering effects, like heart issues. Other countries employ them, and their death numbers are far better than ours. The problem is we have a govt and health care system that so badly wants to coerce vaccination that it has downplayed and in some instances actively discredited treatments and therapeutics that can help fight this disease. Our health leaders have much blood on their hands.


It seems you are reasoning that other countries' treatment choices have been the cause of lower COVID deaths. Is that your claim?
I believe that treatment choices have played a factor in lower death rates.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

D. C. Bear said:

Mothra said:

D. C. Bear said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

It's interesting (and perhaps, telling) that your initial inclination was to attack the messenger.

There are plenty of articles regarding twitter censoring the information in question. A simple google search would have revealed that (see below), if you were concerned the article was posting false info. I am not sure if you read the article, but that's the reason it was posted. The RT article doesn't express concern over American vaccines, but merely talks about the AHA abstract and the twitter censorship.
It's interesting that you chose RT.com and not "plenty of articles" to support your case. You have access to Google, but chose Rt.com. That Putin is a rascal
If you want to engage in an irrelevant ad hominem on RT, you are welcome to it. I don't really care, as long as you don't dispute the substance. It's always easier to attack the messenger, as it takes the focus off the lack of substance in your posts.
No ad hominem, just Wiki facts about rt.com. Wiki doesn't attack your go-to news source. Do you dispute who publishes rt.com?
Who publishes it is irrelevant. The news was confirmed by multiple sources. Given this fact, it's odd you continue to belabor the point. I'll ask again: do you dispute what it reported or not?




That's right, who publishes news of something is, eventually, irrelevant if that news turns out to be true. However, while the source doesn't finally determine a story's accuracy, we can make informed judgments about the likely accuracy of a story based on past performance of a source. While I am not particularly concerned with what Russia Today had to say, I will most certainly dispute what you reported.

Your post created the impression that this abstract was research sponsored in some way by the American Heart Association. "From the American Heart Association," you said. It wasn't "from" the American Heart Association. Even though you could have easily found out, you failed to report that the abstract you posted was not only not backed by actual research, but was also based on a half-assed conference poster "from" a dietary supplement salesman who used to be a heart surgeon. And the kicker is that you entirely failed to report what actually was "from" the American Heart Association: that the American Heart Association had placed a warning on the abstract basically saying it should be considered garbage until further notice.


I realize you're sensitive to any data that is critical of the vaccine, but you really need to do a better job reading before accusing others of painting a false narrative. Your ridiculous assertions are completely erroneous.

The very link I posted - if you had actually read it more closely - stated that Twitter is warning users that the American Heart Association's website may be 'dangerous', after it posted an abstract in one of its own medical journals containing research linking COVID-19 mRNA injections to heart inflammation. The summary was published BY THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION in Circulation, AN AHA JOURNAL on November 16. And contrary to your assertions, the research didn't come from a mere diet supplement salesman (speaking of trying to paint a false narrative) but from a team led by former heart surgeon Steven Grundy - you know the guy you called "garbage"? The "garbage" team applied a heart test to measure a patient's 5-year risk of developing new acute coronary syndrome in vaccinated subjects.

In short, nothing I stated in my original post painted a false or misleading narrative, your erroneous and biased accusations notwithstanding. Whats ironic is the link included in the OP discussed the AHA's critique of the study - you know the very information you've accused me of hiding from readers? That is why the subject of this thread is a question and not a statement. Yet you accuse me of not alerting readers of this fact. Remarkable.

These are simple things you could have verified before making false accusations. Your reading comprehension either sucks, or you're lying. In either regard, you can do better.


That's simply not true. You original post included an abstract that made a number of claims. Your post claimed it was "from" the American Heart Association. Anyone reading your post would be led to think that this was new information being released by a generally credible source, the American Heat Association. That paints a false and misleading narrative. It would only be by clicking through a couple of links and reading more that they would discover this.

When the content of a post creates one impression about the information (new and important information regarding dangers COVID vaccines from the American Heart Association!) but the link to the primary source of that information shows something very different (American Heart Association attaches warning to bogus poster abstract), that is a textbook example of a post creating a false and misleading narrative. It is what it is.

Everyone makes mistakes. What you should be doing is apologizing for the misleading post instead of doubling down on your error.
Unfortunately, everything you just stated remains completely erroneous. Perhaps you're not consciously lying, but simply ignorant. It appears you do not understand what kind of organization AHA is.

The AHA does not have a team of doctors it employs to do research and publish studies. It's a nonprofit organization in the United States that funds and/or publishes cardiovascular medical research by outside doctors and scientists. It has a number of journals in which it publishes these studies, including a journal called "Circulation." The AHA did in fact publish this summary in its medical journal, Circulation, on November 16th. If you had actually read the second link I posted in the OP, you would have seen that it says exactly that:

"The abstract of the study looking into a possible correlation between mRNA Covid shots and heart inflammation was published in one of the Association's journals, Circulation, on November 16."

I think the AHA journal that decided to publish this study is indeed credible. Perhaps it made a mistake in publishing the summary of the study and did not properly vet it. Nevertheless, again, everything I said was completely accurate. But I understand your need to lie in order to maintain your narrative..





You don't seem to understand how this works. This was a poster abstract that was accepted for a conference. All the reviewers had to go on was the 300 to 350 words offered by the submitter. You posted the abstract in your original post. Looks fine until someone looks at the garbage that it was based on. Then, when it is brought to your attention, you publish a note that says: "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."

Posters at conferences are accepted based on their abstracts. It is assumed that the abstracts are, in fact, an honest summary of the research. Even now, you are trying to make it look like this abstract is based on research that the American Heart Association reviewed and found worthy of publication, when it was really simply an abstract submitted for a poster at a conference and the underlying research turned out to be garbage. They didn't "decide to publish this study." They printed a submitted abstract for a poster. You don't "vet" research for poster, you just read the abstract and see if it seems reasonable, so your idea that "maybe" they didn't "vet" it properly is a non-starter. Don't blame them for your failure to accept their warning about the abstract.

Again, you just don't seem to understand how any of this works.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Mothra said:

D. C. Bear said:

Mothra said:

D. C. Bear said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

It's interesting (and perhaps, telling) that your initial inclination was to attack the messenger.

There are plenty of articles regarding twitter censoring the information in question. A simple google search would have revealed that (see below), if you were concerned the article was posting false info. I am not sure if you read the article, but that's the reason it was posted. The RT article doesn't express concern over American vaccines, but merely talks about the AHA abstract and the twitter censorship.
It's interesting that you chose RT.com and not "plenty of articles" to support your case. You have access to Google, but chose Rt.com. That Putin is a rascal
If you want to engage in an irrelevant ad hominem on RT, you are welcome to it. I don't really care, as long as you don't dispute the substance. It's always easier to attack the messenger, as it takes the focus off the lack of substance in your posts.
No ad hominem, just Wiki facts about rt.com. Wiki doesn't attack your go-to news source. Do you dispute who publishes rt.com?
Who publishes it is irrelevant. The news was confirmed by multiple sources. Given this fact, it's odd you continue to belabor the point. I'll ask again: do you dispute what it reported or not?




That's right, who publishes news of something is, eventually, irrelevant if that news turns out to be true. However, while the source doesn't finally determine a story's accuracy, we can make informed judgments about the likely accuracy of a story based on past performance of a source. While I am not particularly concerned with what Russia Today had to say, I will most certainly dispute what you reported.

Your post created the impression that this abstract was research sponsored in some way by the American Heart Association. "From the American Heart Association," you said. It wasn't "from" the American Heart Association. Even though you could have easily found out, you failed to report that the abstract you posted was not only not backed by actual research, but was also based on a half-assed conference poster "from" a dietary supplement salesman who used to be a heart surgeon. And the kicker is that you entirely failed to report what actually was "from" the American Heart Association: that the American Heart Association had placed a warning on the abstract basically saying it should be considered garbage until further notice.


I realize you're sensitive to any data that is critical of the vaccine, but you really need to do a better job reading before accusing others of painting a false narrative. Your ridiculous assertions are completely erroneous.

The very link I posted - if you had actually read it more closely - stated that Twitter is warning users that the American Heart Association's website may be 'dangerous', after it posted an abstract in one of its own medical journals containing research linking COVID-19 mRNA injections to heart inflammation. The summary was published BY THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION in Circulation, AN AHA JOURNAL on November 16. And contrary to your assertions, the research didn't come from a mere diet supplement salesman (speaking of trying to paint a false narrative) but from a team led by former heart surgeon Steven Grundy - you know the guy you called "garbage"? The "garbage" team applied a heart test to measure a patient's 5-year risk of developing new acute coronary syndrome in vaccinated subjects.

In short, nothing I stated in my original post painted a false or misleading narrative, your erroneous and biased accusations notwithstanding. Whats ironic is the link included in the OP discussed the AHA's critique of the study - you know the very information you've accused me of hiding from readers? That is why the subject of this thread is a question and not a statement. Yet you accuse me of not alerting readers of this fact. Remarkable.

These are simple things you could have verified before making false accusations. Your reading comprehension either sucks, or you're lying. In either regard, you can do better.


That's simply not true. You original post included an abstract that made a number of claims. Your post claimed it was "from" the American Heart Association. Anyone reading your post would be led to think that this was new information being released by a generally credible source, the American Heat Association. That paints a false and misleading narrative. It would only be by clicking through a couple of links and reading more that they would discover this.

When the content of a post creates one impression about the information (new and important information regarding dangers COVID vaccines from the American Heart Association!) but the link to the primary source of that information shows something very different (American Heart Association attaches warning to bogus poster abstract), that is a textbook example of a post creating a false and misleading narrative. It is what it is.

Everyone makes mistakes. What you should be doing is apologizing for the misleading post instead of doubling down on your error.
Unfortunately, everything you just stated remains completely erroneous. Perhaps you're not consciously lying, but simply ignorant. It appears you do not understand what kind of organization AHA is.

The AHA does not have a team of doctors it employs to do research and publish studies. It's a nonprofit organization in the United States that funds and/or publishes cardiovascular medical research by outside doctors and scientists. It has a number of journals in which it publishes these studies, including a journal called "Circulation." The AHA did in fact publish this summary in its medical journal, Circulation, on November 16th. If you had actually read the second link I posted in the OP, you would have seen that it says exactly that:

"The abstract of the study looking into a possible correlation between mRNA Covid shots and heart inflammation was published in one of the Association's journals, Circulation, on November 16."

I think the AHA journal that decided to publish this study is indeed credible. Perhaps it made a mistake in publishing the summary of the study and did not properly vet it. Nevertheless, again, everything I said was completely accurate. But I understand your need to lie in order to maintain your narrative..





You don't seem to understand how this works. This was a poster abstract that was accepted for a conference. All the reviewers had to go on was the 300 to 350 words offered by the submitter. You posted the abstract in your original post. Looks fine until someone looks at the garbage that it was based on. Then, when it is brought to your attention, you publish a note that says: "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."

Posters at conferences are accepted based on their abstracts. It is assumed that the abstracts are, in fact, an honest summary of the research. Even now, you are trying to make it look like this abstract is based on research that the American Heart Association reviewed and found worthy of publication, when it was really simply an abstract submitted for a poster at a conference and the underlying research turned out to be garbage. They didn't "decide to publish this study." They printed a submitted abstract for a poster. You don't "vet" research for poster, you just read the abstract and see if it seems reasonable, so your idea that "maybe" they didn't "vet" it properly is a non-starter. Don't blame them for your failure to accept their warning about the abstract.

Again, you just don't seem to understand how any of this works.


I think you'd argue with a brick wall.

The summary was published by the American heart association. In the OP I included a link to the AHA's critique. I'm not sure what you continue to yap about.

Go find a brick wall. I'm done with you.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

D. C. Bear said:

Mothra said:

D. C. Bear said:

Mothra said:

D. C. Bear said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

It's interesting (and perhaps, telling) that your initial inclination was to attack the messenger.

There are plenty of articles regarding twitter censoring the information in question. A simple google search would have revealed that (see below), if you were concerned the article was posting false info. I am not sure if you read the article, but that's the reason it was posted. The RT article doesn't express concern over American vaccines, but merely talks about the AHA abstract and the twitter censorship.
It's interesting that you chose RT.com and not "plenty of articles" to support your case. You have access to Google, but chose Rt.com. That Putin is a rascal
If you want to engage in an irrelevant ad hominem on RT, you are welcome to it. I don't really care, as long as you don't dispute the substance. It's always easier to attack the messenger, as it takes the focus off the lack of substance in your posts.
No ad hominem, just Wiki facts about rt.com. Wiki doesn't attack your go-to news source. Do you dispute who publishes rt.com?
Who publishes it is irrelevant. The news was confirmed by multiple sources. Given this fact, it's odd you continue to belabor the point. I'll ask again: do you dispute what it reported or not?




That's right, who publishes news of something is, eventually, irrelevant if that news turns out to be true. However, while the source doesn't finally determine a story's accuracy, we can make informed judgments about the likely accuracy of a story based on past performance of a source. While I am not particularly concerned with what Russia Today had to say, I will most certainly dispute what you reported.

Your post created the impression that this abstract was research sponsored in some way by the American Heart Association. "From the American Heart Association," you said. It wasn't "from" the American Heart Association. Even though you could have easily found out, you failed to report that the abstract you posted was not only not backed by actual research, but was also based on a half-assed conference poster "from" a dietary supplement salesman who used to be a heart surgeon. And the kicker is that you entirely failed to report what actually was "from" the American Heart Association: that the American Heart Association had placed a warning on the abstract basically saying it should be considered garbage until further notice.


I realize you're sensitive to any data that is critical of the vaccine, but you really need to do a better job reading before accusing others of painting a false narrative. Your ridiculous assertions are completely erroneous.

The very link I posted - if you had actually read it more closely - stated that Twitter is warning users that the American Heart Association's website may be 'dangerous', after it posted an abstract in one of its own medical journals containing research linking COVID-19 mRNA injections to heart inflammation. The summary was published BY THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION in Circulation, AN AHA JOURNAL on November 16. And contrary to your assertions, the research didn't come from a mere diet supplement salesman (speaking of trying to paint a false narrative) but from a team led by former heart surgeon Steven Grundy - you know the guy you called "garbage"? The "garbage" team applied a heart test to measure a patient's 5-year risk of developing new acute coronary syndrome in vaccinated subjects.

In short, nothing I stated in my original post painted a false or misleading narrative, your erroneous and biased accusations notwithstanding. Whats ironic is the link included in the OP discussed the AHA's critique of the study - you know the very information you've accused me of hiding from readers? That is why the subject of this thread is a question and not a statement. Yet you accuse me of not alerting readers of this fact. Remarkable.

These are simple things you could have verified before making false accusations. Your reading comprehension either sucks, or you're lying. In either regard, you can do better.


That's simply not true. You original post included an abstract that made a number of claims. Your post claimed it was "from" the American Heart Association. Anyone reading your post would be led to think that this was new information being released by a generally credible source, the American Heat Association. That paints a false and misleading narrative. It would only be by clicking through a couple of links and reading more that they would discover this.

When the content of a post creates one impression about the information (new and important information regarding dangers COVID vaccines from the American Heart Association!) but the link to the primary source of that information shows something very different (American Heart Association attaches warning to bogus poster abstract), that is a textbook example of a post creating a false and misleading narrative. It is what it is.

Everyone makes mistakes. What you should be doing is apologizing for the misleading post instead of doubling down on your error.
Unfortunately, everything you just stated remains completely erroneous. Perhaps you're not consciously lying, but simply ignorant. It appears you do not understand what kind of organization AHA is.

The AHA does not have a team of doctors it employs to do research and publish studies. It's a nonprofit organization in the United States that funds and/or publishes cardiovascular medical research by outside doctors and scientists. It has a number of journals in which it publishes these studies, including a journal called "Circulation." The AHA did in fact publish this summary in its medical journal, Circulation, on November 16th. If you had actually read the second link I posted in the OP, you would have seen that it says exactly that:

"The abstract of the study looking into a possible correlation between mRNA Covid shots and heart inflammation was published in one of the Association's journals, Circulation, on November 16."

I think the AHA journal that decided to publish this study is indeed credible. Perhaps it made a mistake in publishing the summary of the study and did not properly vet it. Nevertheless, again, everything I said was completely accurate. But I understand your need to lie in order to maintain your narrative..





You don't seem to understand how this works. This was a poster abstract that was accepted for a conference. All the reviewers had to go on was the 300 to 350 words offered by the submitter. You posted the abstract in your original post. Looks fine until someone looks at the garbage that it was based on. Then, when it is brought to your attention, you publish a note that says: "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."

Posters at conferences are accepted based on their abstracts. It is assumed that the abstracts are, in fact, an honest summary of the research. Even now, you are trying to make it look like this abstract is based on research that the American Heart Association reviewed and found worthy of publication, when it was really simply an abstract submitted for a poster at a conference and the underlying research turned out to be garbage. They didn't "decide to publish this study." They printed a submitted abstract for a poster. You don't "vet" research for poster, you just read the abstract and see if it seems reasonable, so your idea that "maybe" they didn't "vet" it properly is a non-starter. Don't blame them for your failure to accept their warning about the abstract.

Again, you just don't seem to understand how any of this works.


I think you'd argue with a brick wall.

The summary was published by the American heart association. In the OP I included a link to the AHA's critique. I'm not sure what you continue to yap about.

Go find a brick wall. I'm done with you.


Brick wall will probably have more reasonable take than yours.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

D. C. Bear said:

Mothra said:

D. C. Bear said:

Mothra said:

D. C. Bear said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:


https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-vaccines/

Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccines

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rt.com#cite_note-state_media-1][1][/url] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

It's interesting (and perhaps, telling) that your initial inclination was to attack the messenger.

There are plenty of articles regarding twitter censoring the information in question. A simple google search would have revealed that (see below), if you were concerned the article was posting false info. I am not sure if you read the article, but that's the reason it was posted. The RT article doesn't express concern over American vaccines, but merely talks about the AHA abstract and the twitter censorship.
It's interesting that you chose RT.com and not "plenty of articles" to support your case. You have access to Google, but chose Rt.com. That Putin is a rascal
If you want to engage in an irrelevant ad hominem on RT, you are welcome to it. I don't really care, as long as you don't dispute the substance. It's always easier to attack the messenger, as it takes the focus off the lack of substance in your posts.
No ad hominem, just Wiki facts about rt.com. Wiki doesn't attack your go-to news source. Do you dispute who publishes rt.com?
Who publishes it is irrelevant. The news was confirmed by multiple sources. Given this fact, it's odd you continue to belabor the point. I'll ask again: do you dispute what it reported or not?




That's right, who publishes news of something is, eventually, irrelevant if that news turns out to be true. However, while the source doesn't finally determine a story's accuracy, we can make informed judgments about the likely accuracy of a story based on past performance of a source. While I am not particularly concerned with what Russia Today had to say, I will most certainly dispute what you reported.

Your post created the impression that this abstract was research sponsored in some way by the American Heart Association. "From the American Heart Association," you said. It wasn't "from" the American Heart Association. Even though you could have easily found out, you failed to report that the abstract you posted was not only not backed by actual research, but was also based on a half-assed conference poster "from" a dietary supplement salesman who used to be a heart surgeon. And the kicker is that you entirely failed to report what actually was "from" the American Heart Association: that the American Heart Association had placed a warning on the abstract basically saying it should be considered garbage until further notice.


I realize you're sensitive to any data that is critical of the vaccine, but you really need to do a better job reading before accusing others of painting a false narrative. Your ridiculous assertions are completely erroneous.

The very link I posted - if you had actually read it more closely - stated that Twitter is warning users that the American Heart Association's website may be 'dangerous', after it posted an abstract in one of its own medical journals containing research linking COVID-19 mRNA injections to heart inflammation. The summary was published BY THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION in Circulation, AN AHA JOURNAL on November 16. And contrary to your assertions, the research didn't come from a mere diet supplement salesman (speaking of trying to paint a false narrative) but from a team led by former heart surgeon Steven Grundy - you know the guy you called "garbage"? The "garbage" team applied a heart test to measure a patient's 5-year risk of developing new acute coronary syndrome in vaccinated subjects.

In short, nothing I stated in my original post painted a false or misleading narrative, your erroneous and biased accusations notwithstanding. Whats ironic is the link included in the OP discussed the AHA's critique of the study - you know the very information you've accused me of hiding from readers? That is why the subject of this thread is a question and not a statement. Yet you accuse me of not alerting readers of this fact. Remarkable.

These are simple things you could have verified before making false accusations. Your reading comprehension either sucks, or you're lying. In either regard, you can do better.


That's simply not true. You original post included an abstract that made a number of claims. Your post claimed it was "from" the American Heart Association. Anyone reading your post would be led to think that this was new information being released by a generally credible source, the American Heat Association. That paints a false and misleading narrative. It would only be by clicking through a couple of links and reading more that they would discover this.

When the content of a post creates one impression about the information (new and important information regarding dangers COVID vaccines from the American Heart Association!) but the link to the primary source of that information shows something very different (American Heart Association attaches warning to bogus poster abstract), that is a textbook example of a post creating a false and misleading narrative. It is what it is.

Everyone makes mistakes. What you should be doing is apologizing for the misleading post instead of doubling down on your error.
Unfortunately, everything you just stated remains completely erroneous. Perhaps you're not consciously lying, but simply ignorant. It appears you do not understand what kind of organization AHA is.

The AHA does not have a team of doctors it employs to do research and publish studies. It's a nonprofit organization in the United States that funds and/or publishes cardiovascular medical research by outside doctors and scientists. It has a number of journals in which it publishes these studies, including a journal called "Circulation." The AHA did in fact publish this summary in its medical journal, Circulation, on November 16th. If you had actually read the second link I posted in the OP, you would have seen that it says exactly that:

"The abstract of the study looking into a possible correlation between mRNA Covid shots and heart inflammation was published in one of the Association's journals, Circulation, on November 16."

I think the AHA journal that decided to publish this study is indeed credible. Perhaps it made a mistake in publishing the summary of the study and did not properly vet it. Nevertheless, again, everything I said was completely accurate. But I understand your need to lie in order to maintain your narrative..





You don't seem to understand how this works. This was a poster abstract that was accepted for a conference. All the reviewers had to go on was the 300 to 350 words offered by the submitter. You posted the abstract in your original post. Looks fine until someone looks at the garbage that it was based on. Then, when it is brought to your attention, you publish a note that says: "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."

Posters at conferences are accepted based on their abstracts. It is assumed that the abstracts are, in fact, an honest summary of the research. Even now, you are trying to make it look like this abstract is based on research that the American Heart Association reviewed and found worthy of publication, when it was really simply an abstract submitted for a poster at a conference and the underlying research turned out to be garbage. They didn't "decide to publish this study." They printed a submitted abstract for a poster. You don't "vet" research for poster, you just read the abstract and see if it seems reasonable, so your idea that "maybe" they didn't "vet" it properly is a non-starter. Don't blame them for your failure to accept their warning about the abstract.

Again, you just don't seem to understand how any of this works.


I think you'd argue with a brick wall.
That much is clear.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.