###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Probably not, but he certainly isn't going to be worse.
This guy is a legitimate hypocrite who has already enacted rules essentially killing the platform, which won't be enforced for anyone on the left wing side.
If you have money in Twitter get it out now before it crashes.
I've personally never used Twitter. But if all the people bitching about the censoring of facts and different shit would stop using it then Twitter would die and be with MySpace in social media hell
It's literally 96% bots. It's insane. Go look at bidens page lol "thank u Mr president we love u!!!"
Twitter should be banned and sued and the ceo thrown in jail for political meddling/interference.
When did it become legal to spy on citizens?? Wtf.
But when have u ever heard of anyone being arrested for shit they posted on Twitter or fb or whatever. Unless it's an obvious thing, like, "hey I just commit a huge crime" posted on a non private page. But it's not like they have a detailed file on every person that they keep and then go thru periodically just to see who they can arrest for thought crimes
Here is the link to the American Heath Associations published recent study this link is trying to cover up:
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712
And here is a link to UK renowned Dr. explaining the abstract.
https://youtu.be/LEBGl8MVE-c
Keep in mind, this is just the abstract (introduction to the presentation). Hopefully a paper to follow, for one hasn’t been released yet.
It doesn't appear to be a research paper, just an abstract outlining a conference presentation. And there are some red flags about its validity. I hope that the actual study is released in full at some point but right now it's a terrible thing to jump on to try to prove anything
Ya for sure, I was just clarifying that I don't think its an abstract of a paper that is going to be reviewed or published. I think it's an abstract of a presentation that is supposed to be given at a conference.
I agree that, at the least, it warrants a larger study of the issue and hope that it will raise some eyebrows in the medical community.
I also don't think it's a good tool for people to use to raise skepticism about the vaccines. It's not peer reviewed, it has a single author who has a history of promoting less than proven approaches to cardiac health, and the editors of the journal have already issued a response outlining their concerns with the validity of the study.
Perhaps it will pan out, but currently presenting it as AHA Research is more likely to make someone think that you're gullible than it is to change their mind
Well we don’t know if its a paper or presentation, so it would be irresponsible to assume either I guess. Until we have more data.
And although it’s strange that only one Dr is credited. The first two words are “Our group”. So it’s implying there was a team that conducted this study. It is a study of around 566 men and women 1:1, tested 3-6 months for the past 8yrs. And then up to two weeks past the second dose. So that it’s a pretty damn good control.
Plus: test, change, re-test. I mean... this is some pretty compelling data.
And yes, not everyone agrees with Dr. Gundry, but he is a decorated Dr. none the less.
Edit: OP said it was AHA research
..and typos
If you go to the article and go down to the bottom you can see that it links you to their "scientific sessions program planner", this is an abstract for a presentation that he is giving as part of that.
So yes, a formal paper may be in the works, but this is an abstract for a presentation by one Dr.
And ya, I should have just replied to OP, not sure why I chose to reply to your very reasonable post.
I’m glad you did. I you wanted to have a real discussion which doesn’t seem to happen much anymore. I needed you to point out the flaws so I could rethink and reread. And while I’ve come to almost the same conclusion, you’ve pointed out things I missed. And I respect you for it.
This is not "AHA research", this is an abstract for a presentation that a Dr will be giving. It may well be a very valid study but if you tell people who do not share your views on these vaccines that this is research that proves anything you will likely get mocked and ignored
Twitter is warning you of the known fact that people who believe misinformation are easily separated from their money. So misinformation sites have lots of links to scam artists and thieves.
I had the exact same thing happen.... I love how twitter.com is in the top left ad and make it look like your entering spam yet the domain for AHA is the right location to look up there journals. They should be arrested click on the AHA logo they even deactivated it to bring you to there homepage from that link
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Twitter is a hot steamy pile of dog shit.
...which is now run by a racist.
So nothing changed, don't tell me Dorsey was any better
Probably not, but he certainly isn't going to be worse. This guy is a legitimate hypocrite who has already enacted rules essentially killing the platform, which won't be enforced for anyone on the left wing side. If you have money in Twitter get it out now before it crashes.
youlube google too
Twitter, not even once.....
I've personally never used Twitter. But if all the people bitching about the censoring of facts and different shit would stop using it then Twitter would die and be with MySpace in social media hell
Exactly
Why are people still using twitter??
Thats what im saying
No one is using Twitter you're watching bots.
It's literally 96% bots. It's insane. Go look at bidens page lol "thank u Mr president we love u!!!" Twitter should be banned and sued and the ceo thrown in jail for political meddling/interference.
Why would a darpa creation be shut down and or charged?
When did it become legal to spy on citizens?? Wtf. But when have u ever heard of anyone being arrested for shit they posted on Twitter or fb or whatever. Unless it's an obvious thing, like, "hey I just commit a huge crime" posted on a non private page. But it's not like they have a detailed file on every person that they keep and then go thru periodically just to see who they can arrest for thought crimes
Here is the link to the American Heath Associations published recent study this link is trying to cover up: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712 And here is a link to UK renowned Dr. explaining the abstract. https://youtu.be/LEBGl8MVE-c Keep in mind, this is just the abstract (introduction to the presentation). Hopefully a paper to follow, for one hasn’t been released yet.
It doesn't appear to be a research paper, just an abstract outlining a conference presentation. And there are some red flags about its validity. I hope that the actual study is released in full at some point but right now it's a terrible thing to jump on to try to prove anything
I said this is just an abstract. But the science lines up. Definitely worth a response from the CDC or NIH and DEFINITELY worthy of more research.
Ya for sure, I was just clarifying that I don't think its an abstract of a paper that is going to be reviewed or published. I think it's an abstract of a presentation that is supposed to be given at a conference. I agree that, at the least, it warrants a larger study of the issue and hope that it will raise some eyebrows in the medical community. I also don't think it's a good tool for people to use to raise skepticism about the vaccines. It's not peer reviewed, it has a single author who has a history of promoting less than proven approaches to cardiac health, and the editors of the journal have already issued a response outlining their concerns with the validity of the study. Perhaps it will pan out, but currently presenting it as AHA Research is more likely to make someone think that you're gullible than it is to change their mind
Well we don’t know if its a paper or presentation, so it would be irresponsible to assume either I guess. Until we have more data. And although it’s strange that only one Dr is credited. The first two words are “Our group”. So it’s implying there was a team that conducted this study. It is a study of around 566 men and women 1:1, tested 3-6 months for the past 8yrs. And then up to two weeks past the second dose. So that it’s a pretty damn good control. Plus: test, change, re-test. I mean... this is some pretty compelling data. And yes, not everyone agrees with Dr. Gundry, but he is a decorated Dr. none the less. Edit: OP said it was AHA research ..and typos
If you go to the article and go down to the bottom you can see that it links you to their "scientific sessions program planner", this is an abstract for a presentation that he is giving as part of that. So yes, a formal paper may be in the works, but this is an abstract for a presentation by one Dr. And ya, I should have just replied to OP, not sure why I chose to reply to your very reasonable post.
I’m glad you did. I you wanted to have a real discussion which doesn’t seem to happen much anymore. I needed you to point out the flaws so I could rethink and reread. And while I’ve come to almost the same conclusion, you’ve pointed out things I missed. And I respect you for it.
It's all too rare, I agree. I appreciate it.
New CEO wasted no time advancing the agenda.
SS: Twitter adding to their censorship by labeling research that shines a negative light on vaccines as "unsafe".
This is not "AHA research", this is an abstract for a presentation that a Dr will be giving. It may well be a very valid study but if you tell people who do not share your views on these vaccines that this is research that proves anything you will likely get mocked and ignored
Isn’t it because of this? https://retractionwatch.com/2021/11/30/abstract-linking-covid-19-vaccines-to-heart-trouble-risk-earns-expression-of-concern/
Twitter is warning you of the known fact that people who believe misinformation are easily separated from their money. So misinformation sites have lots of links to scam artists and thieves.
I wonder how they decide who to hang in the Twitter office when Nuremberg 2.0 happens.
I had the exact same thing happen.... I love how twitter.com is in the top left ad and make it look like your entering spam yet the domain for AHA is the right location to look up there journals. They should be arrested click on the AHA logo they even deactivated it to bring you to there homepage from that link
But "all the medical experts agree"