Don't be too hard on DC.%A0 He's got reading comprehension issues.Sam Lowry said:That much is clear.Mothra said:D. C. Bear said:Mothra said:Unfortunately, everything you just stated remains completely erroneous. %A0Perhaps you're not consciously lying, but simply ignorant. It appears you do not understand what kind of organization AHA is.D. C. Bear said:Mothra said:D. C. Bear said:Mothra said:Who publishes it is irrelevant. %A0The news was confirmed by multiple sources. %A0Given this fact, it's odd you continue to belabor the point. %A0I'll ask again: do you dispute what it reported or not?Osodecentx said:No %A0ad hominem, just Wiki facts about rt.com. %A0Wiki doesn't attack your go-to news source. %A0Do you dispute who publishes rt.com?Mothra said:If you want to engage in an irrelevant ad hominem on RT, you are welcome to it. %A0I 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.Osodecentx said:It's interesting that you chose RT.com and not "plenty of articles" to support your case. %A0You have access to Google, but chose Rt.com. %A0That Putin is a rascalMothra said:It's interesting (and perhaps, telling) that your initial inclination was to attack the messenger.Osodecentx said:Good to know an organ of Russian propaganda (RT.com) is concerned about American vaccinesMothra said:
https://www.rt.com/news/542078-twitter-heart-association-unsafe-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)
There are plenty of articles regarding twitter censoring the information in question. %A0A 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. %A0The RT article doesn't express concern over American vaccines, but merely talks about the AHA abstract and the twitter censorship.
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 %A0created 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. %A0Your 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. %A0The 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 %A0false or misleading narrative, your erroneous and biased accusations notwithstanding. %A0Whats 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. %A0Your reading comprehension either sucks, or you're lying. %A0In 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 %A0(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.
The AHA does not have a team of doctors it employs to do research and publish studies. %A0It'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. %A0If 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. %A0Perhaps it made a mistake in publishing the summary of the study and did not properly vet it. %A0Nevertheless, again, everything I said was completely accurate. %A0But I understand your need to lie in order to maintain your narrative.. %A0
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.
Of course, I suppose arguing with a brick wall is a step above lying to protect a narrative. %A0