NIH Medical Journal Article Shatters Mainstream Covid Narratives

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
The article is peer reviewed and everything he said is cited. Attack the argument not the messenger. Who are you again?

He used himself as a source multiple times, and you consider this credible?

The other things you mentioned are correct. I don't know under what circumstances Natural News could possibly be cited in peer review unless it was to illustrate some point, certainly not for sourcing actual data.

Sourcing yourself isn't against any rules, especially in niche or cutting edge science. It's natural that you're interests and research build on previous work. It gets to be a red flag the more self citations are used.

I don't see anything in the OP that isn't factually accurate, but I have no interest in doing the whole article. It doesn't look like he's saying anything I didn't already know except for his opinion.

I don't have to find him credible if he's saying things I've already verified as being accurate. That speaks to his credibility. His opinion on the unprecedented attack on science, doctors, and citizens, is entirely accurate and reflects what tens of thousands of us have been saying all along. Why can appointed people with no clinical experience be making these decisions and recommendations for billions of people?

Gates has essentially acknowledged in an interview that the pandemic, based on what he and all the other top COVID experts said to do, was mismanaged from start to finish. Would it really be surprising to you that this was mismanaged when it was officials, administrators, bureaucrats, and people with no clinical experience making sweeping decisions based on ... opinions? That's what all this was, their opinions, which will always a skew toward authoritarianism and suppression of dissent.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
The article is peer reviewed and everything he said is cited. Attack the argument not the messenger. Who are you again?

He used himself as a source multiple times, and you consider this credible?

The other things you mentioned are correct. I don't know under what circumstances Natural News could possibly be cited in peer review unless it was to illustrate some point, certainly not for sourcing actual data.

Sourcing yourself isn't against any rules, especially in niche or cutting edge science. It's natural that you're interests and research build on previous work. It gets to be a red flag the more self citations are used.

I don't see anything in the OP that isn't factually accurate, but I have no interest in doing the whole article. It doesn't look like he's saying anything I didn't already know except for his opinion.

I don't have to find him credible if he's saying things I've already verified as being accurate. That speaks to his credibility. His opinion on the unprecedented attack on science, doctors, and citizens, is entirely accurate and reflects what tens of thousands of us have been saying all along. Why can appointed people with no clinical experience be making these decisions and recommendations for billions of people?

Gates has essentially acknowledge in an interview that the pandemic, based on what he and all the other top COVID experts said to do, was mismanaged from start to finish. Would it really be surprising to you that this was mismanaged when it was officials, administrators, bureaucrats, and people with no clinical experience making sweeping decisions based on ... opinions? That's what all this was, their opinions, which will always a skew toward authoritarianism and suppression of dissent.

He even mentions how people the truth are being attacked in an unprecedented which ironically predicts exactly what is happening to him for anything he's done to go against the mainstream as well as write this article.

a reply to: LordAhriman

The MSM said the same BS about the rat studies for Roundup.

They were all nuts until the studies were actually proven correct 😎

Who cares what a past his prime old bag of limes and some classic pharma shill have to say. Not I. Thanks for posting.

Every time I hear people still going on about how Covid killed more then x y z war and booster this that and the other thing I think hmmm this poor thing is retarded.

Imagine thinking other people are responsible for your health and not you personally.
Fat old boomers gunna boom fatly.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

a reply to: ScepticScot

same old excuses when you defend something like the COVID and VAX panic ☠️

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Russell Blaylock... once apparently a brilliant neurosurgeon, retired to become a homeopathic snake oil salesman, works for Newsmax, anti-vaxxer, has also written articles about chemtrails.

Next.

The article is peer reviewed and everything he said is cited. Attack the argument not the messenger. Who are you again?

He got vaccinated and died, so he must be like that poor dead little girl speaking to John Edward's.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
The article is peer reviewed and everything he said is cited. Attack the argument not the messenger. Who are you again?

He used himself as a source multiple times, and you consider this credible?

The other things you mentioned are correct. I don't know under what circumstances Natural News could possibly be cited in peer review unless it was to illustrate some point, certainly not for sourcing actual data.

Sourcing yourself isn't against any rules, especially in niche or cutting edge science. It's natural that you're interests and research build on previous work. It gets to be a red flag the more self citations are used.

I don't see anything in the OP that isn't factually accurate, but I have no interest in doing the whole article. It doesn't look like he's saying anything I didn't already know except for his opinion.

I don't have to find him credible if he's saying things I've already verified as being accurate. That speaks to his credibility. His opinion on the unprecedented attack on science, doctors, and citizens, is entirely accurate and reflects what tens of thousands of us have been saying all along. Why can appointed people with no clinical experience be making these decisions and recommendations for billions of people?

Gates has essentially acknowledge in an interview that the pandemic, based on what he and all the other top COVID experts said to do, was mismanaged from start to finish. Would it really be surprising to you that this was mismanaged when it was officials, administrators, bureaucrats, and people with no clinical experience making sweeping decisions based on ... opinions? That's what all this was, their opinions, which will always a skew toward authoritarianism and suppression of dissent.

Who was the top guy in government at the time when all this governmental mismanagement was occurring?

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Not wishing to throw a spanner in the works, but where did Blacklock get his statistical data from if he is in disagreement with the officially compiled numbers?

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
It doesn't change anything about the content.

True but it is just a collection of the same old stuff some people have been putting out there and this publication doesn't really add any credence to any of it.

a reply to: ScepticScot
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

OP made a claim and showed his sources.

Now you are making a claim, but you don't need sources or proof?

I am sick of people making all kinds of claims and hiding behind "It doesn't work that way."

Yes, it does work that way. In fact, that is the ONLY way this works at all. If you can demand proof from the OP to defend his claim then OP can demand proof of you to debunk it.

We can't take the word of the OP but we don't dare question yours?

Bwaahahaahahaaaaaahahaha

To those with open minds, what I am saying is that this is a very long article with tons of information in it. Someone suggested the article was not peer reviewed as OP stated. Fine. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. That doesn't mean that in the entire article there was absolutely no truth to be found. I don't dismiss or accept anything in totality based on one observers faith, or lack thereof, in the source.

You decide for yourselves. I am so tired of this bull#...

If you make a claim, either for or against a topic or position, you should be able to back it up with something verifiable.

The way you prove something is not true is by proving something else is...DUH.....

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
The article is peer reviewed and everything he said is cited. Attack the argument not the messenger. Who are you again?

He used himself as a source multiple times, and you consider this credible?

The other things you mentioned are correct. I don't know under what circumstances Natural News could possibly be cited in peer review unless it was to illustrate some point, certainly not for sourcing actual data.

Sourcing yourself isn't against any rules, especially in niche or cutting edge science. It's natural that you're interests and research build on previous work. It gets to be a red flag the more self citations are used.

I don't see anything in the OP that isn't factually accurate, but I have no interest in doing the whole article. It doesn't look like he's saying anything I didn't already know except for his opinion.

I don't have to find him credible if he's saying things I've already verified as being accurate. That speaks to his credibility. His opinion on the unprecedented attack on science, doctors, and citizens, is entirely accurate and reflects what tens of thousands of us have been saying all along. Why can appointed people with no clinical experience be making these decisions and recommendations for billions of people?

Gates has essentially acknowledge in an interview that the pandemic, based on what he and all the other top COVID experts said to do, was mismanaged from start to finish. Would it really be surprising to you that this was mismanaged when it was officials, administrators, bureaucrats, and people with no clinical experience making sweeping decisions based on ... opinions? That's what all this was, their opinions, which will always a skew toward authoritarianism and suppression of dissent.

Who was the top guy in government at the time when all this governmental mismanagement was occurring?

The top guy in our government hasn't appeared to be the one making policy, rather a loosely connected network of unscrupulous people with hidden agendas and lots of conflicts of interest. They astroturfed the planet and told everybody who disagreed they were bad people... because they disagreed with what we now know, and I did for two years, terrible anti-science opinions.

The leader in my country or yours? You know the answer to both.

Since you're unable to contest the facts, which I've been telling you for two years, you want to invoke Trump like a care. I don't care and have blamed Trump for much of it. Just because you're emotionally caught up in your politics and your team doesn't mean I am.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Not wishing to throw a spanner in the works, but where did Blacklock get his statistical data from if he is in disagreement with the officially compiled numbers?

Ask the CDC and all the other government agencies who have, increasingly, revised their own incorrect data. Once the data sets are released, if transparent, that data can be further processed with statistics. If you paid attention to the methodologies that were used for a number of the official data sets you'd see they were often not the best tools, rather whatever gave them the results most favorable to support their authoritarian violations of human rights

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
The article is peer reviewed and everything he said is cited. Attack the argument not the messenger. Who are you again?

He used himself as a source multiple times, and you consider this credible?

The other things you mentioned are correct. I don't know under what circumstances Natural News could possibly be cited in peer review unless it was to illustrate some point, certainly not for sourcing actual data.

Sourcing yourself isn't against any rules, especially in niche or cutting edge science. It's natural that you're interests and research build on previous work. It gets to be a red flag the more self citations are used.

I don't see anything in the OP that isn't factually accurate, but I have no interest in doing the whole article. It doesn't look like he's saying anything I didn't already know except for his opinion.

I don't have to find him credible if he's saying things I've already verified as being accurate. That speaks to his credibility. His opinion on the unprecedented attack on science, doctors, and citizens, is entirely accurate and reflects what tens of thousands of us have been saying all along. Why can appointed people with no clinical experience be making these decisions and recommendations for billions of people?

Gates has essentially acknowledge in an interview that the pandemic, based on what he and all the other top COVID experts said to do, was mismanaged from start to finish. Would it really be surprising to you that this was mismanaged when it was officials, administrators, bureaucrats, and people with no clinical experience making sweeping decisions based on ... opinions? That's what all this was, their opinions, which will always a skew toward authoritarianism and suppression of dissent.

Who was the top guy in government at the time when all this governmental mismanagement was occurring?

The top guy in our government hasn't appeared to be the one making policy,

Precisely!

rather a loosely connected network of unscrupulous people with hidden agendas and lots of conflicts of interest. They astroturfed the planet and told everybody who disagreed they were bad people... because they disagreed with what we now know, and I did for two years, terrible anti-science opinions.

That was what the supporters of the guy who was supposed to have set policy, and didn't, used as an excuse.

It is blaming everyone else but the one who actually bore the most responsibility, and failed.

The leader in my country or yours? You know the answer to both.

Since you're unable to contest the facts, which I've been telling you for two years, you want to invoke Trump like a care. I don't care and have blamed Trump for much of it. Just because you're emotionally caught up in your politics and your team doesn't mean I am.

The current situation in my country would indicate that its government at the time could not be charged with any negligence, and did the best they could in the circumstances. In all the world, its responses were among the best, and the current data reflects that.

In the US, current deaths from COVID-19 exceed 1 million, which is 1 COVID-19 death in about every 330 people there. In my country, current deaths from COVID-19 have just exceeded 1,000, which is 1 COVID-19 death in more than 5,000 people here.

The disease is real, it has adversely affected every country on Earth, it wasn't ever a "plandemic". And the leadership of some countries, which should have acted faster, or even just acted, displayed a level of negligence that may well have decimated the population of their country by the time this pandemic is over.

And the fact that the CDC etc, have revised incorrect statistics shows that they are trying to report things truly. If they had just gone with the first lot of figures, who'd know?

Yet still, you haven't even suggested an answer of where this ex-neurologist got his numbers. Throwing shade on the official numbers is a distraction from the question.

34 stars and 40 flags for an opinion piece from a whackjob, and a lying title.

This place is done for.

originally posted by: LordAhriman
34 stars and 40 flags for an opinion piece from a whackjob, and a lying title.

This place is done for.

a reply to: chr0naut
And who is currently letting 10s of thousands of undocumented disease vectors into our country per month? Let's be honest about how much impacts what policies have. The border policy is the biggest contradiction in the whole thing and there is no reasonable justification for it.

You're delusional. You cannot compare a tiny island with a giant country of 350 million. Mitigation isn't the same. A big problem here is that opinions are being conflated with facts. Rather than accepting there are a range of acceptable opinions based on the data, they sought to manipulate the data and say opinions were misinformation. Instead of arguing merits they wanted to be authoritarians. They knew people would oppose their draconian policies. So, they just made science a dogma riddled parody of what it's supposed to be.

I have blamed Trump for everything he did during the pandemic. What the hell is it on ATS with people that are unsatisfied when I agree with them? Are we so sensitive and needy that people have to take a knee and concede the entirety of your opinion or is it really just that your position is not holding up to time?

I never said it wasn't real once. You're numbers are unreliable because we now know the were dishonest with their reporting. Five years maybe, maybe never. Somebody would need the will and legal ability to audit all these deaths with an honest approach to COD versus a positive test and dead from cancer or some other disease.

You can talk all day, but say nothing.

You can say how great they did, but you're forgetting we have better numbers now and we know it was preposterously overblown. Kids were not dying from COVID in any significant numbers and we introduced a dangerous new technology to fight it without a honest and transparent process. The document release has proven they were fudging the numbers and were extremely biased by overblown and emotionally charged rhetoric from the very people who are supposed to be unbiased scientists.

Saying the "best they can do" is also inaccurate because it's observably not true. The best options were out there and were being called disinformation. If they had allowed discussion, which is that actual "best they could do", we wouldn't be here. The best they could do would have been to not dismiss early intervention, prophylaxis, and open discussion.

This being "the best they can do" is the perfect example of why vaccine mandates are an unacceptable policy. They moved to mandate vaccination when they now acknowledge they were wrong. There was no preponderance of evidence. The science was never settled. Their fact checking and misinformation policing was opinions rather than supported facts.

I have been blowing you and many others out of the water on this for two years. The data has confirmed virtually everything I said. The more that times goes on the more this argument is going to be about things other than the "data" and "science" I expect, because the real science and data don't bend to political and social pressure.

You're now being a revisionist with this "best they could do at the time" because if it was the best they could do they all deserve to be removed. Their best was consistently worse than the "anti-science" people being silenced and illegally targeted by the establishment. Further, in my country at least, when there is uncertainty you do not immediately move to use the most oppressive and damaging tools to mitigate it. Feel free to vote in people that will in yours.

All in all, the chickens are coming home to roost.

originally posted by: LordAhriman
34 stars and 40 flags for an opinion piece from a whackjob, and a lying title.

This place is done for.

That is going to be corrected. And then you can argue the topic and not cherry pick things or attack the character. That's at least 2 logical fallacies you're using and constantly use. If you can't do that then you know what they say about people that don't have anything nice to say.

originally posted by: visitedbythem

originally posted by: LordAhriman
34 stars and 40 flags for an opinion piece from a whackjob, and a lying title.

This place is done for.

This, literally.

originally posted by: visitedbythem

originally posted by: LordAhriman
34 stars and 40 flags for an opinion piece from a whackjob, and a lying title.

This place is done for.

TFW everything that you want wanted to be true, is actually satire.

a reply to: LordAhriman
You are criticizing those who are questioning the vax in the filed of science as anti vaxer?