It hasn’t even been a full week since Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey stepped down to be replaced by CTO Parag Agrawal and the social media platform is already making headlines for practically censoring the American Heart Association.

Tired of the ads? Go Ad-Free and Get EXCLUSIVE Content From Stew Peters and the RVM Team, Become a PREMIUM USER

Recently, the American Heart Association released a study that found the mRNA drug increased a person’s risk of developing heart diseases by over double. According to the study, the drug increased the risk from 11% all the way to 25%. 

Obviously, this new report goes directly against the current narrative being pushed by the Democrats and Biden administration. And with big tech acting as their gatekeepers, it should come as no surprise that Twitter slapped an “unsafe link” warning users of the information being presented.

Again, it was the American Heart Association who shared the findings. 

Do you support the American military being involved in Ukraine?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from Red Voice Media, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

For those who might not have clicked the link above, users were quickly directed to a message that states:

Twitter’s warning says that the link was identified as being “potentially spammy or unsafe,” and could contain:

  • malicious links that could steal personal information or harm electronic devices
  • spammy links that mislead people or disrupt their experience
  • violent or misleading content that could lead to real-world harm
  • certain categories of content that, if posted directly on Twitter, are a violation of the Twitter Rules

< Sign the petition: Ban Federal Vaccine Mandates! >

While Twitter was quick to question the American Heart Association, they were extremely silent on which one of the above rules did the association break. Other than going against the current COVID-19 narrative, it appears that the censored message is unwarranted. 

To be clear, the report released was only an abstract, which one user wrote, “which means it hasn’t been peer-reviewed. Need to have the actual study and data from the said study to assess validity, especially on such a controversial topic.”

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Red Voice Media. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary. Red Voice Media would like to make a point of clarification on why we do not refer to any shot related to COVID-19 as a "vaccine." According to the CDC, the definition of a vaccine necessitates that said vaccine have a lasting effect of at least one year in preventing the contraction of the virus or disease it's intended to fight. Because all of the COVID-19 shots thus far available have barely offered six months of protection, and even then not absolute, Red Voice Media has made the decision hereafter to no longer refer to the Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson substances as vaccinations.