Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace of South Carolina spoke at this week’s House Oversight Committee hearing on Twitter censorship during which she revealed that covid “vaccines” damaged her heart in a way “that no doctor can explain.”
Mace says she now has “great regrets” over her decision to get jabbed, explaining that the “heart pain” from which she now suffers will likely stay with her for the rest of her life. (Related: Check out investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson’s running list of covid jab injuries and deaths.)
In explaining the health damage she incurred as a result of getting injected, Mace blasted Twitter executives, including former FBI attorney James Baker, for censoring the deadly truth about covid jabs – truth that could have prevented Mace and others from becoming injured.
Other top censors at Twitter that Mace mentioned include Vijaya Gadde and Yoel Roth, both of whom no longer work at the company after having been fired by its new owner Elon Musk.
“The Twitter Files are not just about Hunter Biden’s laptop,” Mace said. “The Twitter Files make it apparent that Twitter worked overtime to suppress accurate covid information.”
“Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is a professor of medicine at Stanford who once tweeted an article he wrote about natural immunity. Thanks to Elon Musk’s release of the Twitter Files, we learned that some of his tweets were tagged with a label of ‘trends blacklist.’”
Rep. Mace expects to suffer jab-induced health problems, including chronic pain, for the rest of her life
Mace went on to chastise Democrats and Twitter executives for having the gall to label a Stanford doctor’s tweets as “disinformation,” especially since none of them are licensed doctors and are thus not legally allowed to dispense medical advice – or to silence doctors for giving theirs.
“Apparently the views of a Stanford doctor are disinformation to you people,” Mace said. “I, along with many Americans, suffered long-term effects … from the vaccine. It wasn’t the first shot, but it was the second shot that I now developed asthma that has never gone away since I had the second shot, I have tremors in my left hand, and I have the occasional heart pain that no doctor can explain.”
Mace underwent what she described as a “battery of tests” to try to determine what is wrong with her, but to no avail. Had she had access to the types of information that Twitter was censoring throughout the covid saga, then perhaps she would have protected herself by refusing the shots.
“I find it extremely alarming that Twitter’s unfettered censorship spread into medical fields and affected millions of Americans by suppressing expert opinions from doctors and censoring those who disagree with the CDC.”
Harvard-educated epidemiologist Dr. Martin Kulldorff is another medical professional who faced punishment by the Twitter gods for sharing information about natural immunity that bucked the official narrative.
For declaring covid jabs to be unnecessary, particularly for young children, Dr. Kulldorff’s tweet was dubbed as “false information.” Mace now wants to know: where did the Twitter executives who made this decision go to medical school?
“You guys censored Harvard-educated doctors, Stanford-educated doctors, doctors who were educated at the best places in the world, and you silenced those voices,” Mace said to Gadde.
“What makes you think you or anyone else at Twitter have the medical expertise to censor actual, accurate CDC data? This is what Twitter did: they labeled this as ‘inaccurate’ – it’s the government’s own data, and it’s ridiculous that we’re having to have this conversation today.”
by: Ethan Huff
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Discussion about this post