I have finally been Twitter 'locked' - took about a month
I have finally been Twitter 'locked' - took about a month
They are claiming that CDC data is misleading. Not sure I disagree with that claim!
So I just got home from a swim and opened my email to this:
Well hello Twitter bots! What took you so long?!
To be clear, I stated nothing about COVID-19 - my statements were in reference to CDC data on injection rates of COVID-19 injectable products and adverse event reports from VAERS. I know I am being litigious, but it is vital to be litigious nowadays. Precision. To call this misleading, is highly offensive to the parents of these deceased children. They did exist, and they did trust in the safety of these products; enough so that they allowed their children to be injected. Acknowledging that fact, and the outcome, is not NOT misleading. It is REALITY. Especially for those parents. By the way, I made no claim of causation - I stated that the deaths were ‘in the context of the COVID-19 injectable products’ - which they were.
This is the post that they claimed was ‘misleading’:
It’s literally just data from the CDC website and the VAERS website. By the way, check out the top 4 concerns as listed on the CDC website as of June 24, 2022.
Injecting babies. HIV. Lightning. And Monkeypox. Ooooookkkayyyyyy.
I added nothing to their data - I only did a calculation to normalize the rates of cardiac events. I calculated the number of cardiac events from VAERS by performing keyword searches for MedDRA codes - much like the keyword searches the Twitter bots use! So, from my point of view, since I made no misleading statements - I simply reported on a rate based on official CDC data, that the Twitter bots are, quite literally, claiming that the CDC data is misleading. And as far as their claim of harm from information is concerned? Well, you know what? I think adults can make up their own damned minds about what is potentially harmful, and what is not. Even children can do that.
They made sure to pass on what they claim is the non-misleading information:
Well, as long as adverse events are expected and ‘rarely’ serious. And by the way, I am not most people. So, I’m still a hard NO on that, thanks. I’ll make decisions regarding my health and safety based on my expert evaluations of the clinical trial data. Thanks for caring though. Also, I guess I don’t count as a scientist, in their eyes. That’s ok. I won’t take that personally.
I am no Twitter whiz, so besides seeing that they are calling CDC/VAERS data ‘misleading’, and disallowing this particular post from gaining Twitter momentum, I cannot see any changes in my ability to post ‘more’ information. Let’s see where this goes.
P.S. If this gets ugly, I imagine that I could file a claim that Twitter claimed that VAERS data is misleading. (I literally copy and pasted the ‘Symptoms’ and ‘Write-up’ entries for this VAERS entry, intentionally.)
I don’t know the legalities of that but I imagine it would be fun to watch the play out.
Congratulations, Jessica! I only have one Twitter lockout to my name, but I proudly raked in my second Facebook suspension today :-)
My last post couldn’t be more innocuous—I simply wrote:
This is my podcast of a letter I published last October exposing another disinformation campaign; citing peer-reviewed studies demonstrating efficacy; and serving as a reveille for critical thinking, independent research, & liberation from menticide.
https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-a-scientifically-minded-b35
—
The link, however, contained the naughty word “ivermectin” (the original post is titled “Letter to a Scientifically-Minded Friend” with the subtitle “Case Study: The Ivermectin Disinformation Campaign” @ https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-a-scientifically-minded), so I guess that was enough to get me unpersoned.
Isn't it an amazing feeling when we realize that we are being punished for doing what is right?