New Covid-19 Vaccine, Myocarditis Claims From Questionable Abstract In American Heart Association Journal

Forbes ^ | 12/07/2021 | Bruce Yee

[SeekAndFind]

A research abstract that was published on November 8 in the medical journal Circulation has gotten a fair amount of circulation on social media. The abstract made a pretty dramatic claim: “mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation” in the heart, which “may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.” However, there has been some drama around this abstract and its being short on a little thing called “evidence” to support such claims. In fact, on November 24, an American Heart Association committee added an “Expression of Concern” warning due to “potential errors in the abstract.”

Have such potential errors stopped those on social media from disseminating the abstract and making even more unsupported claims about Covid-19 vaccines? In a word, no. In two words, heck no. In 12 words, why let science and facts get in the way of making claims? For example, the following tweet shared the abstract while incorrectly claiming that what was said in the abstract constituted an American Heart Association (AHA) warning:

Umm, just because a research abstract was published in Circulation, an AHA journal, doesn’t necessary mean that the abstract’s contents represent the position of the AHA. That would be a little like saying that the song “WAP” represents the position of Spotify. Unless an abstract said that it represents the position of the AHA, whatever is in the abstract is not an AHA warning. It would be more accurate to call this a Gundry warning. That’s because Steven R. Gundry, MD, was the one and only author of the abstract.

[Mount Athos]

[SeekAndFind]

As per the author of this article:

A 319-word abstract research abstract is not the same thing as a peer-reviewed study published as a research article in a reputable scientific journal. *Circulation* is a very reputable scientific journal.

But a research abstract for an AHA meeting is not the same as a research article in that journal. Just because you got a classified ad into a newspaper trying to sell your One Direction shrine doesn’t mean that you wrote an article about One Direction for that newspaper. Similarly, an abstract for a meeting alone usually doesn’t go through the same formal rigorous peer review that a published research article would.

[rktman]

Myocarditis? It’s “RARE”. Hardly ever happens.

[BenLurkin]

Holy mackerel! There really is such a thing...

[nickcarraway]

I'm not sure I buy everything Gundry says in general.

He says Solanaceae vegetables are unhealthy, i.e. tomatoes, potatoes, peppers, eggplant.

[nickcarraway]

But I assume Circulation won't let just any abstract get published in it's pages?

[MNJohnnie]

So anything that tells the truth contrary about the Medical Bureaucracy political based campaign of lies will be subject to defamation and political attacks to try and intimidate the truth tellers.

How very Stalinist of them

[DesertRhino]

Forbes magazine is not the old business magazine you all knew. It’s majority owned by the communist party of China... literally. You might as well be reading the Peking Times Herald or Mao’s little red book.

[DesertRhino]

So sayeth Bruce Yee... communist Chinese shill.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Forbes magazine is not the old business magazine you all knew. It’s majority owned by the communist party of China...

Does this mean Steve Forbes himself, a free market proponent, has sold out to the CCP? What’s the news source for this change in ownership?

[Republican Wildcat]

Have such potential errors stopped those on social media from disseminating the abstract and making even more unsupported claims about Covid-19 vaccines? In a word, no. In two words, heck no.

Well of course not - because it is all about the narrative. Fact and truth are not primary concerns.

[Manuel OKelley]

they are inflammatory. I like them but try to minimize consumption.

[Republican Wildcat]

But a research abstract for an AHA meeting is not the same as a research article in that journal. Just because you got a classified ad into a newspaper trying to sell your One Direction shrine doesn’t mean that you wrote an article about One Direction for that newspaper. Similarly, an abstract for a meeting alone usually doesn’t go through the same formal rigorous peer review that a published research article would.

Ha! That shows what you know! Haven't you read such reputable publications like The Daily Expose? < / s >

[week 71]

Hmmm... ‘Vaccines’ we are not allowed to know what is in them. And have no legal recourse for immediate or future injuries. We need to trust the science - and Fauci is science.

[grame]

I wouldn’t say unhealthy but they do cause inflammatory reactions in some people. Nightshade veggies do that but you can be moderate in your consumption of them.

[DesertRhino]

https://www.ejinsight.com/eji/article/id/401766/20140721-yam-tak-cheung-new-forbes-owner

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2017/12/14/chinese-ownership-is-raising-questions-about-the-editorial-independence-of-a-major-u-s-magazine/

Don’t really know where Steve Forbes is in this situation, except probably got well paid.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Don’t really know where Steve Forbes is in this situation, except probably got well paid.

Steve should withdraw the Forbes name from this publication and change it to XI instead.