Page Nav



Classic Header


Breaking News:


American Heart Association Publishes Article on Vaccine's Potential Danger, But Look What Twitter Did to the Link

  Over the summer, my nephew’s best friend, age 34, died suddenly after receiving his second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. Ironically, ...

 Over the summer, my nephew’s best friend, age 34, died suddenly after receiving his second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. Ironically, his pregnant wife had pressured him into getting the vaccine so he would be a healthy dad to their soon-to-be-born child.

Since then, we’ve heard many stories of young men developing myocarditis, defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as “inflammation of the heart muscle,” and pericarditis, which is “inflammation of the outer lining of the heart,” following vaccinations.

The American Heart Association recently published an article warning about the potential dangers of mRNA vaccines. Attorney Marina Medvin tweeted the article on Thursday, only for Twitter to flag it as “misleading content that could lead to real-world harm.”

When a reader clicks on the link to the article, a warning pops up that says, “This link may be unsafe. … The link you are trying to access has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially spammy or unsafe, in accordance with Twitter’s URL Policy.”

Following a list of four reasons why the link may have been deemed unsafe — including “violent or misleading content that could lead to real-world harm” — the site gives the reader the option to return to the previous page or ignore the warning and view the objectionable material.

Is Twitter now playing scientist? Will it be policing other papers from major health research publications, or just the ones that challenge its narrative?

A fact-checking organization called Retraction Watch reviewed the article and determined that it deserved an “expression of concern.”

First among its “concerns” was a typographical error: “PLUS” instead of “PULS,” the name of a cardiac test.

Retraction Watch also wanted readers to know that the author of the article, Dr. Steven Gundry, sells a line of supplements and has a YouTube channel.

According to the outlet, Gundry is “a cardiac surgeon by training who now sells dietary supplements on his website. Gundry also sees patients at the Center for Restorative Medicine and International Heart & Lung Institute in California and offers advice on YouTube. But critics have accused Gundry of peddling worthless — if ultimately expensive — advice.”

All of this is obviously beside the point. It’s clear that Gundry’s findings should raise some serious concerns.

The abstract of his paper states that the risk of a new “acute coronary syndrome” within five years increases from 11 percent to 25 percent after one’s second dose of the vaccine. The increased risk lasts for at least two and a half months.

I am not a scientist, but I doubt the AHA would publish Gundry’s paper if it were quackery.

Who appointed Twitter to judge the accuracy of medical data? Even the CDC acknowledges the elevated risk of heart issues among young males after mRNA vaccines.

But Big Tech now works hand in hand with the federal government and has a vested interest in seeing that every American gets vaccinated. Thus, any information that might discourage individuals from doing so will be censored.

This is no different than Big Tech’s decision to suppress stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop ahead of the 2020 presidential election.

It’s just Big Tech doing its part to shape the political opinions and worldviews of its users.

No comments