Twitter attempts to define relevant science

Readers of Stacey Lennox of  PJ Media, Dec. 3, 2021, were presented with some disturbing facts.  On Nov. 8, 2021, the American Heart Association Journals published the abstracts that researchers and clinicians would present during online sessions beginning Nov. 13.  These presentations are peer-reviewed and vetted thoroughly by the scientific community.  They often represent the cutting edge of scientific knowledge on a given subject and, like all genuine scientific research, have no political agenda.  Their only agenda is advancing scientific knowledge by presenting research accomplishments and providing a forum for further study and debate among qualified scientists.

One of those abstracts published in the journal Circulation dealt with mRNA vaccines and cardiac health.  Lennox wrote that when Twitter followers attempted to share the information, readers encountered the following warning:

It would seem that the arrogant powers that be at Twitter feel they are more qualified to determine what is dangerous to readers than actual scientists.  The audacity of these self-appointed guardians of all that should matter to its readers is astonishing.

The article in question dealt with possible side-effects of mRNA vaccines, which may cause inflammation of heart and circulatory vessels, possibly leading to various adverse events.  The author of this abstract, Dr. Steven R. Gundry of the International Heart and Lung Institute, began this study before we were stricken with the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID mRNA vaccines were not the first of their kind.  Questions regarding negative inflammatory side-effects resulting from the administration of these types of vaccines had been raised before the vast majority of Americans had ever heard of COVID or Dr. Anthony Fauci.  The political debates about the COVID vaccines played no part in and had no effect on the study.  The relevance of the research

seems indisputable — that is, unless your political agenda of widespread vaccine mandates is questioned.

Having successfully banned Donald Trump from their site has emboldened the Twitteratti to define the boundaries of any and all information disseminated within their platform.  This dictates that the relevance of any scientific research be compliant with Twitter's progressive liberal agenda.  It is certainly not "following the science."

Provided you possess the necessary liberal-progressive credentials, your "scientific comments" can be heard on Twitter.  Alchemists and snake oil salesmen will surely take note.

Image via Max Pixel.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.

If you experience technical problems, please write to