Posted on 11/04/2023 4:19:28 AM PDT by RandFan
Tell me more, Dingbat.
Hey Dingbat --
if you stupid conspirators hadn't induced panic fear to sell experimental mRNA technology to SAVE THE WORLD!
(but really as a psychological tour-de-force, so that all resistance to future mRNA injections would melt, so Pfauci, Pfizer, and modeRNA could get filthy rich)
-- and hadn't lied about everything from the transmissibility,
to the expected fatality rates,
to masks (Pfauci pflip-pflopped on masks, so he was lying either before or after),
to efficacy of the jabs,
to only needing one jab, which became "every 6 months",
to "safe and effective" --
you still would have had credibility with the public.
And even more so, when they figured out the "We're ALL GONNA DIE YOU MUST TAKE THE JAB AIEEEE!" -- was just a scam to make your friends rich?
People seeing loved ones die in front of them, or throw blood clots, or have heart attacks; people seeing major sports figures including competitive mountain bikers who basically wore cardiac monitors 24x7 anyway, suddenly have heart problems, people seeing TV figures pass out or develop convulsions on live TV -- and people on their own, organically creating support groups for jab injuries, only to have their support groups unilaterally shut down without warning by firms run by far-left California billionaires--
they're not going to be convinced by some self-important cat lady jumping up and down and screaming "Because SCIENCE™!"
Especially when you tell them they're too stupid to see what's happening right before their eyes.
Hint: nobody but liberal morons like you are wearing masks anymore. And people have kind of noticed, there are no more dancing nurse TikTok videos, no more relentless TV propaganda: and people are noticing nobody's catching the coof anymore.
And they're putting two and two together and saying, hey, why do I need three and four boosters?
You guys shot your wad and blew your credibility at the same time.
Sucks to be you.
See what happens when you lose credibility? You start having to go more and more to populist sources which are themselves even less reliable than the so-called "Grifter" sites you are using as strawmen.
Really? Quoting Newsweek as an Authoritative source on FR?
Not going to “Try”. Going to “Do”. Thank you.
Quoting Newsweek as an Authoritative source on FR?
From FOUR YEARS ago, when lies were being well told.
I am not anti vaccine. I am anti Covid gene therapy.
Look up “chicken fat clots”.
That’s a type of clot that only forms after death. They have the appearance of chicken fat and can be very long. They have been around long before covid and its vaccines. Apparently not very common.
I’m not asking him.
I’d like to what definition you are using for what makes something a real vaccine.
Team Kook listed me on the Big Pharma payroll awhile back and I’m still waiting for my check.
What’s the hold up? Why is ExDemMom getting paid while I get “the check is in the mail”?
I may switch over to Team Kook and see if Big Conspiracy pays up unlike the Big Pharma deadbeats.
That’s a type of clot that only forms after death. They have the appearance of chicken fat and can be very long. They have been around long before covid and its vaccines. Apparently not very common.
Indeed. This article was published in 2008. Unfortunately, its details are blocked behind a paywall.
Several years ago (in 2018), I saw a photo of a large clot that a young man had coughed up. It had the shape of the bronchial passages of the right lung. Unfortunately, the young man had serious medical issues that he did not survive.
Doctors Aren’t Sure How This Even Came Out of a Patient.
Blood clots are nothing new.
What do you not understand?
Many vaccines require periodic boosters. It is unusual for a vaccine to NOT require boosters.
Why do we need boosters? Because we want to have as much protection as possible against diseases that can harm or kill us. Because our immune systems are forgetful and need refreshers on how to fight specific diseases.
The only vaccines I've ever had that did not require booster were the measles and the hepatitis A and B vaccines. All of the other vaccines I've had must be boosted every so often.
There’s many pre-Covid studies over at PubMed concerning sudden deaths of young people, particularly athletes. This goes back decades. Young athletes have an even higher rate of cardiac death than their non athlete peers.
None of this is new to the medical world. What is new is jab obsessed nuts suddenly discovering sudden deaths. And then in all of their massive medical wisdom announcing to the public at large that vaccines did it.
Do you deny that the Newsweek article described antivax beliefs accurately?
I always vet my sources before posting.
If you want, I can do a search for medical/scientific literature that provides great detail about antivax beliefs that researchers have revealed through studies. But you already said that the scientific/medical literature that I often link to is incomprehensible.
The Newsweek article, on the other hand, is very readable even by the most scientifically illiterate.
For those of you who aren't aware, Mr. Steyn (or someone who sounds just like him) made a single posting on this forum.
Time for Rush Limbaugh's show to look toward the future again
exDemMom has far more discipline and sticks to the script better than you do. When she has lost an argument she will no longer make comments about it or respond to the poster. Not to mention that she claims to be a PhD and an “infectious disease and vaccines research specialist”. She also is a much more prolific poster. Most importantly her posts get noticed and commented on far more than yours. Out of the 230 posts in this thread, she either wrote the post or was mentioned in about 90 of them.
Looking over your posts however I feel that you should be receiving some form of compensation for your efforts. If you still have concerns you should bring this to the attention of the head honchos and see what they can do to remedy the situation. They would all be glad to hear from you. asfauci@niaid.gov, abourla@pfizer.com, or the big guy himself jbiden@whitehouse.gov
16 human subjects.
For two months
SPONSORED BY PFIZER
Right there in the disclaimers/conflict of interest section.
You tell me, is 16 people enough to get good error bars?
Is 2 months long enough to establish a valid safety profile for an experimental genetic therapy which uses artificially adulterated nucleotides in the body, designed to resist degradation, *and* to produce an adulterated version of the spike protein, which despite the lying claims, never stayed at the injection site, but even crossed the blood-brain barrier, which Pfizer knew, but lied about and covered up, even going so far to lie about the deaths in the jabs wing of their trials?
The Newsweek article, on the other hand, is very readable even by the most scientifically illiterate.
AND, easily accessible to whores.
Oh I'm sorry.
I only meant "As in whoring for Pfizer."
Dingbat.
Don't you realize nobody is falling for your schtick anymore, Major Houlihan?
The door out of the tent is *that* way.
No I didn't.
You did.
Typical of small-minded Pfizer whores that they suffer from delusions of adequacy.
The real science is not a matter of credentials.
You owe me a new keyboard
Prayers for Mark Steyn - he’s a good man with a voice we need...
Sort of. My PhD is in biochemistry and molecular biology. I think of this as a sort of "general practice" scientist, a field that is applicable to many different kinds of research. My career path led me into various positions related to infectious disease research and countermeasures development. It wasn't planned that way. I started work at a new facility and one of the first questions was, "How much do you know about influenza?" I answered that I used to sit next to a nurse who collected patient samples for an influenza study and that was enough for them to designate me as the influenza expert. Of course, I read a lot, I talked to a CDC physician who was familiar with influenza, and I became the expert that my boss expected me to be.
In your opinion is the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research a “Conspiracy and antivax/anti-science site”?
Very much so. I've done a detailed analysis of this particular "journal" before and don't really have the energy to do so again right now. I tried to convey as clearly as possible the "red flags" that indicate that this is a scam "journal." But, as you already quoted me saying, sometimes the PhD education interferes with plain communication, so I may not have communicated completely clearly what those red flags are.
Of the red flags, there are two that are especially pertinent: the qualifications of the majority of the editorial staff who are not infectious disease specialists or research scientists, and the fact that this "journal" is not indexed in PubMed. PubMed.gov is a database containing citation data, abstracts, and sometimes entire research articles published in the medical science literature. With the exception of journals published in totalitarian regimes like North Korea or Cuba, these journals come from all over the world and represent the work of all medical scientists. Although it is common practice to publish articles in English, there is no language requirement for the journals. The criteria for a journal to be included in the PubMed.gov database is that it meets scientific standards as set by the research/medical community.
Did you read it? Did you look through the references to see the quality and type of references used? Are you able to access those references and related data, such as the clinical trial registration filed by Pfizer at Clinicaltrials.gov? Did you read the references and verify that their content is accurately summarized in the article?
I'm fairly certain that this is one of the articles I linked in my previous explanation of how to recognize IVJTPR as a bogus journal, so I now think you already saw that explanation.
This article is not a study report. None of the authors actually wrote a research proposal, ran it through ethics committees, or submitted it to a funding agency. They conducted absolutely zero original research and present absolutely zero original information. This article type, which is based on information contained in other articles or sources, is called a "review article." The purpose of a typical review article is to summarize the current status of knowledge in the field and to suggest future lines of research.
The use of the word "peer-review" is misleading. If you read the information for authors section of that website, you will see that the "peers" are selected from the editorial staff. This is not really peer-review. A real journal selects reviewers from scientists in the field who are recognized expertise in the area of research described in the manuscript. For example, an article describing observations of rabies-infected brains might be reviewed by a virologist, a veterinarian, a pathologist, and a cytologist because those are experts who would know the most about rabies. They look for scientific validity, quality of data and data analysis, how well the study adds to the knowledge base in that area of research, etc.
Another red flag indicator is the language used in that "review." For example, it places scare quotes around the word "pandemic" and other phrases in the abstract, for the purpose of communicating that these are not real phenomena. (I used quotes around the word "review" above for the same purpose: that article is not a true review.) Scientists do not use scare quotes in their professional publications.
There are also examples of what I will call "accusatory" language which are highly unprofessional and unscientific. For example, "In a placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial, causality is determined on a statistical basis at the termination of the trial when information on all participants can be taken into consideration. This is a decision that should not be done by the commercial sponsor of the trial who has a conflict of interest regarding the treatment, as was done in this trial by the sponsor Pfizer/BioNTech." The first sentence in this quote is completely true and reflects clinical trial practice. The second sentence is problematic. What decision, specifically, is this referring to that Pfizer should not have made? The reader is supposed to assume from this that Pfizer engaged in unethical behavior, but what that behavior is, we'll never know.
As an editorial note, I will point out that Pfizer did not personally conduct the clinical trials. As you can see in this Pfizer registration of a clinical trial A Study to Evaluate Safety, Tolerability, & Immunogenicity of Multiple Formulations of BNT162b2 Against COVID-19 in Healthy Adults, the clinical trials were conducted by organizations in several areas of the country. Those organizations are clinical research companies and universities. In other words, Pfizer outsourced the clinical trials to independent organizations. Furthermore, those clinical trials are all monitored by the FDA. I know from experience that the FDA will stop a trial at the drop of a hat if there is any issue with it.
And this quote from the IVJTPR (which you previously quoted) is another example of accusatory language: "Had the FDA been aware of the cardiac event signal documented in this report, regulators might have given second thoughts regarding safety problems with the mRNA vaccine, as was seen in the 1976 swine flu vaccine debacle."
So, this accuses the FDA of being unaware of the clinical trials that it oversees and of being incompetent. Such language is very unprofessional. But, of course, the purpose of this "review" is not to share information with the scientific community. Its purpose is to promote a narrative in which dangerous adverse events occurred during the clinical trial which everyone purposely overlooked. All of the references, the pseudoscientific language, etc., are designed to convince the target audience (who are not scientists) that these people really know what they're talking about. No one, in a real scientific publication, will say "The FDA should have done ..." or accuse anyone of being sloppy, cutting corners, etc., as is done in this "review."
You do not believe in scientific principles or scientific ethics. You do not believe in science you believe in Scientism. You are not a scientist.
When people start with the ad hominem attacks, I know it is because they cannot refute anything I say with actual facts. If (like professional antivaxxers) I'm making stuff up or saying that scientific publications say things they don't say, that should be easy enough to demonstrate. For example, I frequently mention that Covid-19 disease causes heart damage. For example, let me talk about specific heart damage such as arrhythmias caused by Covid infection which raise the risk of sudden cardiac death in Covid patients and survivors and use this review as supporting evidence: Long COVID-19 Syndrome and Sudden Cardiac Death: The Phantom Menace. If I am lying, then you should be able to read the review and explain exactly how I lied. You should be able to access and read the references to original studies which inform the review and show that I misrepresented them and that they do not support a conclusion that Covid-19 related heart damage is a serious health concern. (Note: the review itself is not printed on line. You have to download a pdf to read it.)
Can you do that?
You're correct in saying it's not something that's never happened before. What's new is, there's been a >30% INCREASE in the rates of such since the covid epidemic. People are seeing and hearing about it more often.
The timing suggests that it COULD be because of the vaxxes. The rates started increasing after the rollout of the vaccines. But, the Vaxxes came out really quickly. And, since practically everyone got the vax, and ALSO had covid, it's debatable about which one was the cause. Most likely, both contribute to the increase.
But, without question... there has been a statistically significant increase in just the past 2 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.