I work from home and do this. I am prone to errors after 5-6 hours at my desk so the break keeps my productivity up.

It just means we've had the misfortune to be in a lab reeking of formalin. You're not missing out on anything meaningful or fun. :-)

And as other folks have said, it's just jargon. The first person said the heart tissue may not have been preserved in a standard way and that could impact the results. I'm pointing out that there are some less-common ways to describe the chemical used to preserve the tissue. We don't know which is right, whether they did something unusual or used very unusual language.

So you are ascribing nefarious motives to only this one post of a journal title and article link and not the remaining thousands of identically formatted posts. It seems you're the one with the agenda.

How is OP using a "strategy" when the headline is the exact title of the journal article? If you take exception to how the authors titled their manuscript that's got nothing to do with OP.

I've seen it in papers from people fixing tissue culture cells or animal tissues. Also I don't think fixation in 4% v/v would even crosslink well enough to section and stain. Their photomicrographs looked pretty typical for FFPE.

This isn't misinformation. It's a peer reviewed study looking at fatal myocarditis associated with (but not necessarily caused by) covid vaccination. This sub isn't exactly the place to rally anti-vax support.

Trying to characterize vaccine-induced myocarditis so it can be detected and treated effectively is important, as with any other severe vaccine side effect like GBS or anaphylaxis. It's very rare - maybe 1 in 25,000 and most cases resolve - but still well worth trying to understand.

I've seen standard histology fixation solution referred to as 4% because it's ~4% w/v of formaldehyde. The 10% is v/v.