Sam Lowry said:

---

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. %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.

---

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 rascal

---

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.

---

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?

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

That much is clear.

---

Don't be too hard on DC.%A0 He's got reading comprehension issues.

Of course, I suppose arguing with a brick wall is a step above lying to protect a narrative. %A0

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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. %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.

---

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 rascal

---

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.

---

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?

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

That much is clear.

---

Don't be too hard on DC.%A0 He's got reading comprehension issues.

Of course, I suppose arguing with a brick wall is a step above lying to protect a narrative. %A0

---

Here is a simple question. Do you believe the folks at the American Heart Association were credible when they warned that the poster abstract was, to summarize, garbage?

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.

---

So it really hasnt happened and what you called a fact is really just your predictions.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU 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.

---

So it really hasnt happened and what you called a fact is really just your predictions.

---

I don't know what you are saying here.

The warnings are real. As a matter of fact I received a warning for receiving (not even prescribing) HCQ! Some of the physicians in my community who have prescribed HCQ have received threatening letters. All pre ivermectin. I have seen the Mississippi State board warnings threatening board action regarding the vague notion of "spreading misinformation."

Do I personally know someone who has gambled and lost their license to practice medicine? No. But I also don't know anyone willing to make the gamble.

My point being is that all this is ABNORMAL and inappropriate.

BearFan33 said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU 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.

---

So it really hasnt happened and what you called a fact is really just your predictions.

---

I don't know what you are saying here.

The warnings are real. As a matter of fact I received a warning for receiving (not even prescribing) HCQ! Some of the physicians in my community who have prescribed HCQ have received threatening letters. All pre ivermectin. I have seen the Mississippi State board warnings threatening board action regarding the vague notion of "spreading misinformation."

Do I personally know someone who has gambled and lost their license to practice medicine? No. But I also don't know anyone willing to make the gamble.

My point being is that all this is ABNORMAL and inappropriate.

---

It is indeed happening, and anyone disputing it is living in denial. A very well-known health provider here in Austin has told its physicians not to prescribe Ivermectin or face loss of job.

We should all be concerned about such practices, especially those of us who purport to be libertarians.

Here is a simple answer: that's not what the AHA said, ye of horrid reading comprehension.

Now go talk to a brick wall.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Check your comprehension before accusing others.

---

Check your own and be truthful in your exchanges.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Here is a simple answer: that's not what the AHA said, ye of horrid reading comprehension.

Now go talk to a brick wall.

---

Yes, it is what the AHA said, as specifically stated in "expression of concern" quoted below.

"This article expresses concern regarding abstract "Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning" which originally published November 8, 2021; https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712.
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."

The above is academic language for "we published what appears to be a garbage abstract and we are working on a suitable correction."

The fact that you failed to include the "Expression of Concern" in your original post and only posted the abstract of dubious quality, you either didn't bother to read the "Expression of Concern," you are incapable of understanding what it said, or you are intentionally misleading readers with your post. None of those options reflect well.

---

Now you're just lying. From the second link in my original post:

"It is worth noting, however, that while the American Heart Association did publish the abstract, it later attached an "expression of concern" to the study over "potential errors" in it. Among other things, it cites the author's reliance on anecdotal data and a lack of statistical analyses. The Association warned the "abstract in its current version may not be reliable." On top of that, the study has yet to be peer-reviewed."

I know how you hate losing arguments, but never thought you'd resort to lying.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Check your comprehension before accusing others.

---

Check your own and be truthful in your exchanges.

---

I always am. I also usually go out of my way to avoid beating you up about your comprehension issues, but when you accuse others of lying based on your own failure to read, it deserves calling out.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Check your comprehension before accusing others.

---

Check your own and be truthful in your exchanges.

---

I always am.

---

Unfortunately, our recent exchange in the thread discussing how vaccine mandates are consistent with limited govt. says otherwise. I understand that you're upset that you got owned in that thread, and your inconsistent logic was exposed. But it still doesn't excuse making stuff up. You can do better.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Check your comprehension before accusing others.

---

Check your own and be truthful in your exchanges.

---

I also usually go out of my way to avoid beating you up about your comprehension issues, but when you accuse others of lying based on your own failure to read, it deserves calling out.

---

I'll play along - please identify my reading comprehension issue in this thread.

I'll hang up and listen.

I am currently in the care of a cardiologist. About two weeks after my second Modera vaccine, I was experiencing a rapid heartbeat, some pain and shortness of breath.

In July, I got either pneumonia or Covid (they did not test.) A few weeks ago I wore a heart monitor for three days. It turns out that 23% of my heartbeats are PAC.

I was referred to a cardiologist and had a stress test. I go for a Echocardiogram on Dec 30. This is either from the vaccine of Covid if that is what I had in July.

Stress test showed that I had 66,000 PAC's....

fadskier said:

---

I am currently in the care of a cardiologist. About two weeks after my second Modera vaccine, I was experiencing a rapid heartbeat, some pain and shortness of breath.

In July, I got either pneumonia or Covid (they did not test.) A few weeks ago I wore a heart monitor for three days. It turns out that 23% of my heartbeats are PAC.

I was referred to a cardiologist and had a stress test. I go for a Echocardiogram on Dec 30. This is either from the vaccine of Covid if that is what I had in July.

Stress test showed that I had 66,000 PAC's....

---

The Vax Nazis on this thread will tell you that's all just a coincidence, the vax is perfectly safe, and your anecdotal evidence means nothing.

Mothra said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I am currently in the care of a cardiologist. About two weeks after my second Modera vaccine, I was experiencing a rapid heartbeat, some pain and shortness of breath.

In July, I got either pneumonia or Covid (they did not test.) A few weeks ago I wore a heart monitor for three days. It turns out that 23% of my heartbeats are PAC.

I was referred to a cardiologist and had a stress test. I go for a Echocardiogram on Dec 30. This is either from the vaccine of Covid if that is what I had in July.

Stress test showed that I had 66,000 PAC's....

---

The Vax Nazis on this thread will tell you that's all just a coincidence, the vax is perfectly safe, and your anecdotal evidence means nothing.

---

Cardiologist did say that the vaccine effect on the heart is not backed by evidence. He is inclined to think I had Covid in July and it has been shown to affect the heart. I will likely be put on meds.

fadskier said:

---

Mothra said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I am currently in the care of a cardiologist. About two weeks after my second Modera vaccine, I was experiencing a rapid heartbeat, some pain and shortness of breath.

In July, I got either pneumonia or Covid (they did not test.) A few weeks ago I wore a heart monitor for three days. It turns out that 23% of my heartbeats are PAC.

I was referred to a cardiologist and had a stress test. I go for a Echocardiogram on Dec 30. This is either from the vaccine of Covid if that is what I had in July.

Stress test showed that I had 66,000 PAC's....

---

The Vax Nazis on this thread will tell you that's all just a coincidence, the vax is perfectly safe, and your anecdotal evidence means nothing.

---

Cardiologist did say that the vaccine effect on the heart is not backed by evidence. He is inclined to think I had Covid in July and it has been shown to affect the heart. I will likely be put on meds.

---

I am sorry to hear that. Prayers for a speedy recovery.

Mothra said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I am currently in the care of a cardiologist. About two weeks after my second Modera vaccine, I was experiencing a rapid heartbeat, some pain and shortness of breath.

In July, I got either pneumonia or Covid (they did not test.) A few weeks ago I wore a heart monitor for three days. It turns out that 23% of my heartbeats are PAC.

I was referred to a cardiologist and had a stress test. I go for a Echocardiogram on Dec 30. This is either from the vaccine of Covid if that is what I had in July.

Stress test showed that I had 66,000 PAC's....

---

The Vax Nazis on this thread will tell you that's all just a coincidence, the vax is perfectly safe, and your anecdotal evidence means nothing.

---

Who would that be?

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I am currently in the care of a cardiologist. About two weeks after my second Modera vaccine, I was experiencing a rapid heartbeat, some pain and shortness of breath.

In July, I got either pneumonia or Covid (they did not test.) A few weeks ago I wore a heart monitor for three days. It turns out that 23% of my heartbeats are PAC.

I was referred to a cardiologist and had a stress test. I go for a Echocardiogram on Dec 30. This is either from the vaccine of Covid if that is what I had in July.

Stress test showed that I had 66,000 PAC's....

---

The Vax Nazis on this thread will tell you that's all just a coincidence, the vax is perfectly safe, and your anecdotal evidence means nothing.

---

Who would that be?

---

I much prefer the term, Branch Covidians!

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Here is a simple answer: that's not what the AHA said, ye of horrid reading comprehension.

Now go talk to a brick wall.

---

Yes, it is what the AHA said, as specifically stated in "expression of concern" quoted below.

"This article expresses concern regarding abstract "Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning" which originally published November 8, 2021; https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712.
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."

The above is academic language for "we published what appears to be a garbage abstract and we are working on a suitable correction."

The fact that you failed to include the "Expression of Concern" in your original post and only posted the abstract of dubious quality, you either didn't bother to read the "Expression of Concern," you are incapable of understanding what it said, or you are intentionally misleading readers with your post. None of those options reflect well.

---

Now you're just lying. From the second link in my original post:

"It is worth noting, however, that while the American Heart Association did publish the abstract, it later attached an "expression of concern" to the study over "potential errors" in it. Among other things, it cites the author's reliance on anecdotal data and a lack of statistical analyses. The Association warned the "abstract in its current version may not be reliable." On top of that, the study has yet to be peer-reviewed."

I know how you hate losing arguments, but never thought you'd resort to lying.

---

The information that the abstract is basically garbage is not in your post.

The fact that it is mentioned in a news article you linked to make a point about something different isn't relevant to the narrative that you were offering in your post.

The narrative you offered was as follows: The American Heart Association says "From the American Heart Association" that the vaccine is horrible for your heart (quote of the dubious poster abstract) and Twitter has marked it as dangerous!

You left out information that is critical to evaluating the usefulness of the information that is in your post. Either through neglect or by intent, you offered a post that is a misleading and would cause people who took it at face value to believe something that is false.

Even now, you refuse to really face the reality that the the same people who published the abstract are telling us that it is basically garbage.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I am currently in the care of a cardiologist. About two weeks after my second Modera vaccine, I was experiencing a rapid heartbeat, some pain and shortness of breath.

In July, I got either pneumonia or Covid (they did not test.) A few weeks ago I wore a heart monitor for three days. It turns out that 23% of my heartbeats are PAC.

I was referred to a cardiologist and had a stress test. I go for a Echocardiogram on Dec 30. This is either from the vaccine of Covid if that is what I had in July.

Stress test showed that I had 66,000 PAC's....

---

The Vax Nazis on this thread will tell you that's all just a coincidence, the vax is perfectly safe, and your anecdotal evidence means nothing.

---

Who would that be?

---

Your lying ass.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Here is a simple answer: that's not what the AHA said, ye of horrid reading comprehension.

Now go talk to a brick wall.

---

Yes, it is what the AHA said, as specifically stated in "expression of concern" quoted below.

"This article expresses concern regarding abstract "Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning" which originally published November 8, 2021; https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712.
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."

The above is academic language for "we published what appears to be a garbage abstract and we are working on a suitable correction."

The fact that you failed to include the "Expression of Concern" in your original post and only posted the abstract of dubious quality, you either didn't bother to read the "Expression of Concern," you are incapable of understanding what it said, or you are intentionally misleading readers with your post. None of those options reflect well.

---

Now you're just lying. From the second link in my original post:

"It is worth noting, however, that while the American Heart Association did publish the abstract, it later attached an "expression of concern" to the study over "potential errors" in it. Among other things, it cites the author's reliance on anecdotal data and a lack of statistical analyses. The Association warned the "abstract in its current version may not be reliable." On top of that, the study has yet to be peer-reviewed."

I know how you hate losing arguments, but never thought you'd resort to lying.

---

The information that the abstract is basically garbage is not in your post.

The fact that it is mentioned in a news article you linked to make a point about something different isn't relevant to the narrative that you were offering in your post.

The narrative you offered was as follows: The American Heart Association says "From the American Heart Association" that the vaccine is horrible for your heart (quote of the dubious poster abstract) and Twitter has marked it as dangerous!

You left out information that is critical to evaluating the usefulness of the information that is in your post. Either through neglect or by intent, you offered a post that is a misleading and would cause people who took it at face value to believe something that is false.

Even now, you refuse to really face the reality that the the same people who published the abstract are telling us that it is basically garbage.

---

More lies.

Contrary to your assertions, I never said anything about the veracity of the abstract. I posed a question for discussion, and then linked to an article that discussed both twitter censoring the abstract and the AHA's "expression of concern." I also pointed out that the abstract was published by the AHA. Those are the facts.

I disagree with your opinion that the abstract has been proven garbage, though I understand your need to term it as such. We can agree to disagree on that.

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I am currently in the care of a cardiologist. About two weeks after my second Modera vaccine, I was experiencing a rapid heartbeat, some pain and shortness of breath.

In July, I got either pneumonia or Covid (they did not test.) A few weeks ago I wore a heart monitor for three days. It turns out that 23% of my heartbeats are PAC.

I was referred to a cardiologist and had a stress test. I go for a Echocardiogram on Dec 30. This is either from the vaccine of Covid if that is what I had in July.

Stress test showed that I had 66,000 PAC's....

---

The Vax Nazis on this thread will tell you that's all just a coincidence, the vax is perfectly safe, and your anecdotal evidence means nothing.

---

Who would that be?

---

Your lying ass.

---

Your tendency to impolite rhetoric is unbecoming and will eventually earn you a time out.

In any event, there is certainly a chance that our friend's cardiac problems are related to a reaction to the vaccine. It is also possible that his individual case is entirely unrelated to the vaccine and unrelated to the illness he suffered as well.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I am currently in the care of a cardiologist. About two weeks after my second Modera vaccine, I was experiencing a rapid heartbeat, some pain and shortness of breath.

In July, I got either pneumonia or Covid (they did not test.) A few weeks ago I wore a heart monitor for three days. It turns out that 23% of my heartbeats are PAC.

I was referred to a cardiologist and had a stress test. I go for a Echocardiogram on Dec 30. This is either from the vaccine of Covid if that is what I had in July.

Stress test showed that I had 66,000 PAC's....

---

The Vax Nazis on this thread will tell you that's all just a coincidence, the vax is perfectly safe, and your anecdotal evidence means nothing.

---

Who would that be?

---

Your lying ass.

---

Your tendency to impolite rhetoric is unbecoming and will eventually earn you a time out.

---

Oh please. You're one of the most arrogant jerks on this board. This thread is proof of that.

"Can we all just get along?"
-- Rodney King

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Here is a simple answer: that's not what the AHA said, ye of horrid reading comprehension.

Now go talk to a brick wall.

---

Yes, it is what the AHA said, as specifically stated in "expression of concern" quoted below.

"This article expresses concern regarding abstract "Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning" which originally published November 8, 2021; https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712.
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."

The above is academic language for "we published what appears to be a garbage abstract and we are working on a suitable correction."

The fact that you failed to include the "Expression of Concern" in your original post and only posted the abstract of dubious quality, you either didn't bother to read the "Expression of Concern," you are incapable of understanding what it said, or you are intentionally misleading readers with your post. None of those options reflect well.

---

Now you're just lying. From the second link in my original post:

"It is worth noting, however, that while the American Heart Association did publish the abstract, it later attached an "expression of concern" to the study over "potential errors" in it. Among other things, it cites the author's reliance on anecdotal data and a lack of statistical analyses. The Association warned the "abstract in its current version may not be reliable." On top of that, the study has yet to be peer-reviewed."

I know how you hate losing arguments, but never thought you'd resort to lying.

---

The information that the abstract is basically garbage is not in your post.

The fact that it is mentioned in a news article you linked to make a point about something different isn't relevant to the narrative that you were offering in your post.

The narrative you offered was as follows: The American Heart Association says "From the American Heart Association" that the vaccine is horrible for your heart (quote of the dubious poster abstract) and Twitter has marked it as dangerous!

You left out information that is critical to evaluating the usefulness of the information that is in your post. Either through neglect or by intent, you offered a post that is a misleading and would cause people who took it at face value to believe something that is false.

Even now, you refuse to really face the reality that the the same people who published the abstract are telling us that it is basically garbage.

---

More lies.

Contrary to your assertions, I never said anything about the veracity of the abstract. I posed a question for discussion, and then linked to an article that discussed both twitter censoring the abstract and the AHA's "expression of concern." I also pointed out that the abstract was published by the AHA. Those are the facts.

I disagree with your opinion that the abstract has been proven garbage, though I understand your need to term it as such. We can agree to disagree on that.

---

You were not simply posing a question for discussion. You were promoting a particular narrative about the poster abstract. This is evidenced by how you chose to present the information.

It is not my opinion that it has been "proven garbage." It is the considered judgment of those who printed it in first place that it is, as published, garbage.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Here is a simple answer: that's not what the AHA said, ye of horrid reading comprehension.

Now go talk to a brick wall.

---

Yes, it is what the AHA said, as specifically stated in "expression of concern" quoted below.

"This article expresses concern regarding abstract "Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning" which originally published November 8, 2021; https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712.
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."

The above is academic language for "we published what appears to be a garbage abstract and we are working on a suitable correction."

The fact that you failed to include the "Expression of Concern" in your original post and only posted the abstract of dubious quality, you either didn't bother to read the "Expression of Concern," you are incapable of understanding what it said, or you are intentionally misleading readers with your post. None of those options reflect well.

---

Now you're just lying. From the second link in my original post:

"It is worth noting, however, that while the American Heart Association did publish the abstract, it later attached an "expression of concern" to the study over "potential errors" in it. Among other things, it cites the author's reliance on anecdotal data and a lack of statistical analyses. The Association warned the "abstract in its current version may not be reliable." On top of that, the study has yet to be peer-reviewed."

I know how you hate losing arguments, but never thought you'd resort to lying.

---

The information that the abstract is basically garbage is not in your post.

The fact that it is mentioned in a news article you linked to make a point about something different isn't relevant to the narrative that you were offering in your post.

The narrative you offered was as follows: The American Heart Association says "From the American Heart Association" that the vaccine is horrible for your heart (quote of the dubious poster abstract) and Twitter has marked it as dangerous!

You left out information that is critical to evaluating the usefulness of the information that is in your post. Either through neglect or by intent, you offered a post that is a misleading and would cause people who took it at face value to believe something that is false.

Even now, you refuse to really face the reality that the the same people who published the abstract are telling us that it is basically garbage.

---

More lies.

Contrary to your assertions, I never said anything about the veracity of the abstract. I posed a question for discussion, and then linked to an article that discussed both twitter censoring the abstract and the AHA's "expression of concern." I also pointed out that the abstract was published by the AHA. Those are the facts.

I disagree with your opinion that the abstract has been proven garbage, though I understand your need to term it as such. We can agree to disagree on that.

---

You were not simply posing a question for discussion. You were promoting a particular narrative about the poster abstract. This is evidenced by how you chose to present the information.

It is not my opinion that it has been "proven garbage." It is the considered judgment of those who printed it in first place that it is, as published, garbage.

---

So you now know my motives as well. Interesting. I knew you were arrogant, but I didn't know you also believed yourself to be omniscient. Guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I hate to break it to you, but your idea that the abstract is proven garbage is an opinion, not a fact. Probably a tough pill for you to swallow.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I am currently in the care of a cardiologist. About two weeks after my second Modera vaccine, I was experiencing a rapid heartbeat, some pain and shortness of breath.

In July, I got either pneumonia or Covid (they did not test.) A few weeks ago I wore a heart monitor for three days. It turns out that 23% of my heartbeats are PAC.

I was referred to a cardiologist and had a stress test. I go for a Echocardiogram on Dec 30. This is either from the vaccine of Covid if that is what I had in July.

Stress test showed that I had 66,000 PAC's....

---

The Vax Nazis on this thread will tell you that's all just a coincidence, the vax is perfectly safe, and your anecdotal evidence means nothing.

---

Who would that be?

---

Your lying ass.

---

Your tendency to impolite rhetoric is unbecoming and will eventually earn you a time out.

---

Oh please. You're one of the most arrogant jerks on this board. This thread is proof of that.

---

Says the guy who calls other posters Nazis.

You sometimes seem to lack a certain level of self awareness and emotional control.

---

I never suggested I haven't responded to you in like kind.

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Here is a simple answer: that's not what the AHA said, ye of horrid reading comprehension.

Now go talk to a brick wall.

---

Yes, it is what the AHA said, as specifically stated in "expression of concern" quoted below.

"This article expresses concern regarding abstract "Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning" which originally published November 8, 2021; https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712.
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."

The above is academic language for "we published what appears to be a garbage abstract and we are working on a suitable correction."

The fact that you failed to include the "Expression of Concern" in your original post and only posted the abstract of dubious quality, you either didn't bother to read the "Expression of Concern," you are incapable of understanding what it said, or you are intentionally misleading readers with your post. None of those options reflect well.

---

Now you're just lying. From the second link in my original post:

"It is worth noting, however, that while the American Heart Association did publish the abstract, it later attached an "expression of concern" to the study over "potential errors" in it. Among other things, it cites the author's reliance on anecdotal data and a lack of statistical analyses. The Association warned the "abstract in its current version may not be reliable." On top of that, the study has yet to be peer-reviewed."

I know how you hate losing arguments, but never thought you'd resort to lying.

---

The information that the abstract is basically garbage is not in your post.

The fact that it is mentioned in a news article you linked to make a point about something different isn't relevant to the narrative that you were offering in your post.

The narrative you offered was as follows: The American Heart Association says "From the American Heart Association" that the vaccine is horrible for your heart (quote of the dubious poster abstract) and Twitter has marked it as dangerous!

You left out information that is critical to evaluating the usefulness of the information that is in your post. Either through neglect or by intent, you offered a post that is a misleading and would cause people who took it at face value to believe something that is false.

Even now, you refuse to really face the reality that the the same people who published the abstract are telling us that it is basically garbage.

---

More lies.

Contrary to your assertions, I never said anything about the veracity of the abstract. I posed a question for discussion, and then linked to an article that discussed both twitter censoring the abstract and the AHA's "expression of concern." I also pointed out that the abstract was published by the AHA. Those are the facts.

I disagree with your opinion that the abstract has been proven garbage, though I understand your need to term it as such. We can agree to disagree on that.

---

You were not simply posing a question for discussion. You were promoting a particular narrative about the poster abstract. This is evidenced by how you chose to present the information.

It is not my opinion that it has been "proven garbage." It is the considered judgment of those who printed it in first place that it is, as published, garbage.

---

So you now know my motives as well. Interesting. I knew you were arrogant, but I didn't know you also believed yourself to be omniscient. Guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I hate to break it to you, but your idea that the abstract is proven garbage is an opinion, not a fact. Probably a tough pill for you to swallow.

---

One doesn't need to be omniscient to draw reasonable inferences. It is clear that your post, taken without any reference to who wrote it, can be summarized as "the American Heart Association has published research that shows COVID vaccines cause serious heart inflammation and Twitter doesn't want you to believe it." There is a link to the research and a link to a news article from Russia Today showing that "twitter apparently feels the information is too dangerous for the public to digest." Additionally, the entirety of the abstract is reproduced.

There are three basic points that are present in the text:
1) This abstract is "from" the American Heart Association (not an abstract of an unreviewed poster that now has an "Expression of Concern" attached to it).
2) The research itself shows that COVID 19 mRNA vaccines have been shown to cause widespread and serious heart complications. This is a serious warning!
3) Twitter has decided that this information, which has been published by the American Heart Association, is "too dangerous" for us. (not, Twitter has placed a warning on an abstract that the American Heart Association printed and later found to be so seriously flawed (i.e. garbage) that they added an "Expression of Concern" warning that, as it now stands, it's basically garbage).

The above is what the post says to any reasonable reader. Giving the author the benefit of the doubt, one would conclude that this is, in fact, what the author of the post intended to convey.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Here is a simple answer: that's not what the AHA said, ye of horrid reading comprehension.

Now go talk to a brick wall.

---

Yes, it is what the AHA said, as specifically stated in "expression of concern" quoted below.

"This article expresses concern regarding abstract "Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning" which originally published November 8, 2021; https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712.
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."

The above is academic language for "we published what appears to be a garbage abstract and we are working on a suitable correction."

The fact that you failed to include the "Expression of Concern" in your original post and only posted the abstract of dubious quality, you either didn't bother to read the "Expression of Concern," you are incapable of understanding what it said, or you are intentionally misleading readers with your post. None of those options reflect well.

---

Now you're just lying. From the second link in my original post:

"It is worth noting, however, that while the American Heart Association did publish the abstract, it later attached an "expression of concern" to the study over "potential errors" in it. Among other things, it cites the author's reliance on anecdotal data and a lack of statistical analyses. The Association warned the "abstract in its current version may not be reliable." On top of that, the study has yet to be peer-reviewed."

I know how you hate losing arguments, but never thought you'd resort to lying.

---

The information that the abstract is basically garbage is not in your post.

The fact that it is mentioned in a news article you linked to make a point about something different isn't relevant to the narrative that you were offering in your post.

The narrative you offered was as follows: The American Heart Association says "From the American Heart Association" that the vaccine is horrible for your heart (quote of the dubious poster abstract) and Twitter has marked it as dangerous!

You left out information that is critical to evaluating the usefulness of the information that is in your post. Either through neglect or by intent, you offered a post that is a misleading and would cause people who took it at face value to believe something that is false.

Even now, you refuse to really face the reality that the the same people who published the abstract are telling us that it is basically garbage.

---

More lies.

Contrary to your assertions, I never said anything about the veracity of the abstract. I posed a question for discussion, and then linked to an article that discussed both twitter censoring the abstract and the AHA's "expression of concern." I also pointed out that the abstract was published by the AHA. Those are the facts.

I disagree with your opinion that the abstract has been proven garbage, though I understand your need to term it as such. We can agree to disagree on that.

---

You were not simply posing a question for discussion. You were promoting a particular narrative about the poster abstract. This is evidenced by how you chose to present the information.

It is not my opinion that it has been "proven garbage." It is the considered judgment of those who printed it in first place that it is, as published, garbage.

---

So you now know my motives as well. Interesting. I knew you were arrogant, but I didn't know you also believed yourself to be omniscient. Guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I hate to break it to you, but your idea that the abstract is proven garbage is an opinion, not a fact. Probably a tough pill for you to swallow.

---

One doesn't need to be omniscient to draw reasonable inferences. It is clear that your post, taken without any reference to who wrote it, can be summarized as "the American Heart Association has published research that shows COVID vaccines cause serious heart inflammation and Twitter doesn't want you to believe it." There is a link to the research and a link to a news article from Russia Today showing that "twitter apparently feels the information is too dangerous for the public to digest." Additionally, the entirety of the abstract is reproduced.

There are three basic points that are present in the text:
1) This abstract is "from" the American Heart Association (not an abstract of an unreviewed poster that now has an "Expression of Concern" attached to it).
2) The research itself shows that COVID 19 mRNA vaccines have been shown to cause widespread and serious heart complications. This is a serious warning!
3) Twitter has decided that this information, which has been published by the American Heart Association, is "too dangerous" for us. (not, Twitter has placed a warning on an abstract that the American Heart Association printed and later found to be so seriously flawed (i.e. garbage) that they added an "Expression of Concern" warning that, as it now stands, it's basically garbage).

The above is what the post says to any reasonable reader. Giving the author the benefit of the doubt, one would conclude that this is, in fact, what the author of the post intended to convey.

---

Your inferences are neither correct nor reasonable but I'll leave you to them. Believe whatever you want. Your defensiveness and accusations are not a surprise. Anything to protect your narrative.

whitetrash said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday 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)

---

NYT constantly puts out pieces of leaked and illegal information by our intelligence community to advance the interests and narratives around their bureaucracy.

We're no different. Our problem is we're so arrogant and naive we refuse to believe it.

---

There is a pretty significant difference between The New York Times and Russian state-controlled media.

---

Not much.

---

Yes there is. NYT has a daily crossword puzzle.

---

... I hear they now use words like 'Pravda', 'Perestroika' and 'Moskva' in their puzzles.

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Here is a simple answer: that's not what the AHA said, ye of horrid reading comprehension.

Now go talk to a brick wall.

---

Yes, it is what the AHA said, as specifically stated in "expression of concern" quoted below.

"This article expresses concern regarding abstract "Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning" which originally published November 8, 2021; https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712.
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."

The above is academic language for "we published what appears to be a garbage abstract and we are working on a suitable correction."

The fact that you failed to include the "Expression of Concern" in your original post and only posted the abstract of dubious quality, you either didn't bother to read the "Expression of Concern," you are incapable of understanding what it said, or you are intentionally misleading readers with your post. None of those options reflect well.

---

Now you're just lying. From the second link in my original post:

"It is worth noting, however, that while the American Heart Association did publish the abstract, it later attached an "expression of concern" to the study over "potential errors" in it. Among other things, it cites the author's reliance on anecdotal data and a lack of statistical analyses. The Association warned the "abstract in its current version may not be reliable." On top of that, the study has yet to be peer-reviewed."

I know how you hate losing arguments, but never thought you'd resort to lying.

---

The information that the abstract is basically garbage is not in your post.

The fact that it is mentioned in a news article you linked to make a point about something different isn't relevant to the narrative that you were offering in your post.

The narrative you offered was as follows: The American Heart Association says "From the American Heart Association" that the vaccine is horrible for your heart (quote of the dubious poster abstract) and Twitter has marked it as dangerous!

You left out information that is critical to evaluating the usefulness of the information that is in your post. Either through neglect or by intent, you offered a post that is a misleading and would cause people who took it at face value to believe something that is false.

Even now, you refuse to really face the reality that the the same people who published the abstract are telling us that it is basically garbage.

---

More lies.

Contrary to your assertions, I never said anything about the veracity of the abstract. I posed a question for discussion, and then linked to an article that discussed both twitter censoring the abstract and the AHA's "expression of concern." I also pointed out that the abstract was published by the AHA. Those are the facts.

I disagree with your opinion that the abstract has been proven garbage, though I understand your need to term it as such. We can agree to disagree on that.

---

You were not simply posing a question for discussion. You were promoting a particular narrative about the poster abstract. This is evidenced by how you chose to present the information.

It is not my opinion that it has been "proven garbage." It is the considered judgment of those who printed it in first place that it is, as published, garbage.

---

So you now know my motives as well. Interesting. I knew you were arrogant, but I didn't know you also believed yourself to be omniscient. Guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I hate to break it to you, but your idea that the abstract is proven garbage is an opinion, not a fact. Probably a tough pill for you to swallow.

---

One doesn't need to be omniscient to draw reasonable inferences. It is clear that your post, taken without any reference to who wrote it, can be summarized as "the American Heart Association has published research that shows COVID vaccines cause serious heart inflammation and Twitter doesn't want you to believe it." There is a link to the research and a link to a news article from Russia Today showing that "twitter apparently feels the information is too dangerous for the public to digest." Additionally, the entirety of the abstract is reproduced.

There are three basic points that are present in the text:
1) This abstract is "from" the American Heart Association (not an abstract of an unreviewed poster that now has an "Expression of Concern" attached to it).
2) The research itself shows that COVID 19 mRNA vaccines have been shown to cause widespread and serious heart complications. This is a serious warning!
3) Twitter has decided that this information, which has been published by the American Heart Association, is "too dangerous" for us. (not, Twitter has placed a warning on an abstract that the American Heart Association printed and later found to be so seriously flawed (i.e. garbage) that they added an "Expression of Concern" warning that, as it now stands, it's basically garbage).

The above is what the post says to any reasonable reader. Giving the author the benefit of the doubt, one would conclude that this is, in fact, what the author of the post intended to convey.

---

Your inferences are neither correct nor reasonable but I'll leave you to them. Believe whatever you want. Your defensiveness and accusations are not a surprise. Anything to protect your narrative.

---

You posted an abstract from a poster that was so deficient that the conference organizers felt it necessary to publish an expression of concern so that people would know it was garbage.

VACCINE RISK
Even if vaccines have not been around for long, the sample for the Covid vaccines is so yuuuuge that we can already see what risks they don't have & proceed by elimination.
This is not a precise estimation but the framework to work with. pic.twitter.com/OB1pGMETAc

— Nassim Nicholas Taleb (@nntaleb) December 6, 2021