There's hardly a phrase in your off-topic comment that isn't objectionable and/or wrong. Anyway..

I could only find the abstract, then realized it's because the paper was not published in this peer-reviewed journal, i.e. Circulation. Instead the abstract appeared in Volume 144, Issue Suppl_1: Abstracts From the American Heart Association's 2021 Scientific Sessions. The Scientific Sessions appears to have been an online "3-day learning experience" in video conference/lecture form. Unfortunately they want $80 from me to look at the videos so my quest stopped there.

I was curious how the amazing amateurishness presented in the sibling comment's linked twitter thread (apparently screen shots of "the paper" in question) was possible in a peer-reviewed journal, so I've answered that one at least, I think.

https://professional.heart.org/en/meetings/scientific-sessio...

Here's a different standpoint to your article [1]. The rhetoric used in the Twitter thread is unnecessary, but it presents a bit more context.

[1] https://twitter.com/lfoquet/status/1462888024862121990

Single purpose accounts aren't allowed here, and neither is using HN primarily for ideological battle, so I've banned this account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Single purpose accounts aren't allowed here

What's wrong with that? Some users really like to talk a lot about Java [1] and I am mainly interested in talking about the ongoing pandemic. HN offers a great format to have balanced discussions with a technical/science-oriented community. Additionally, it doesn't seem like COVID-19 topics are spamming/dominating the main page.

> and neither is using HN primarily for ideological battle

I started the thread to find out more about the current situation. One user replied with an article against vaccines. I tried to offer more context (i.e. defending the vaccines). In a different thread [2], a user underestimated the risks of vaccinating children and, again, I tried to balance it out (i.e. criticizing the vaccines). And sometimes, I just like to add a comment to confront the absurdities of today's governance [3]. Where am I primarily engaging in ideological battle?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=Skinney (Just a random user)

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29111492

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29275781

What's wrong with that is that such accounts are invariably agenda-driven rather than curiosity-driven, and that destroys what the site is supposed to be for.

Curiosity meanders in unpredictable directions, so there's basically zero overlap here.

IMO, it's unfortunate that you see my comments/threads as invariably destructive & agenda-driven, essentially putting them on a level with this [1] (although that user wasn't banned). I'd be glad to continue the discussions about the pandemic. Your site, your decision.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29328994

You can't get meaningful signal out of pointing to one bad comment like that. We don't come close to seeing everything that gets posted here (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). I've responded now.

Bad as that comment was, it's clear from the account history that there's no parallel between how they've been using HN and what we banned you for. I assume I explained the latter clearly enough, so I'm not sure why you would bring up a distraction like that.

Also, it's not in very good taste to point the finger at someone else when getting moderated. People do that all the time, of course, but it tends to be a signal that they don't really care about the values of the site.

Thanks for the context! The aha link GP shared seems to be the abstract for the poster discussed in this Twitter thread.

So not a peer reviewed study, and plenty of red flags in the poster content according to the Twitter thread, including the unlisted conflict of interest on the part of the poster author

Just like the rest of antivaxer bullshit.

Please don't post unsubstantive and/or flamewar comments here, regardless of how right you are or feel you are.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

"Cause heart issues"

What percentage of people get it? If it's super low than it's not straightforward to say they cause heart issues.

That's like the few people per year that slip on banana peels and die... "Banana peels cause death!"

This particular “abstract” is from a guy selling diet supplements.

Well, to be fair(er), it seems his main/first career was heart surgeon.