Astrazeneca: Vaccine death inadequate payout

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Who said he hadn't published anything?

You have said that he hasn't published the paper he did earlier. And then you upgraded your argument that it's not a peer reviewed paper after it was made clear that he did publish the paper.

Please link to where i said he hadn't published the paper.

I am sorry you need to go back and see it for yourself.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Again where did someone claim there was no article?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Who said he hadn't published anything?

You have said that he hasn't published the paper he did earlier. And then you upgraded your argument that it's not a peer reviewed paper after it was made clear that he did publish the paper.

Please link to where i said he hadn't published the paper.

I am sorry you need to go back and see it for yourself.

So you can't find where I said it.

Probably because I didn't

So are you lying or mistaken?

originally posted by: nonspecific
You can say what you want and you can say it as many times as you want but the simple truth is that its a review article and not a study or a research paper.

Call me or others names if you like but it won't change the fact that you are either misunderstanding the difference or wilfully trying to deceive people.

As far as opinions go it's not a bad one but that's what it is.


a reply to: Asmodeus3

This is a peer reviewed scientific publication published on the journal of insulin resistance.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.a review of scientific literature and re-analysis and evaluation are perfectly legitimate pieces of research.

a reply to: ScepticScot

p 10

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Who said he hadn't published anything?

You have said that he hasn't published the paper he did earlier. And then you upgraded your argument that it's not a peer reviewed paper after it was made clear that he did publish the paper.

Please link to where i said he hadn't published the paper.

I am sorry you need to go back and see it for yourself.

So you can't find where I said it.

Probably because I didn't

So are you lying or mistaken?

It's tool late now to deflect as you have lost the argument long time ago by making a range of unsubstantiated claims including the one above and that the paper is not peer reviewed in addition to be calling Dr Malhotra biased and his study not proper research.

You need to reflect on your posts.

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: ScepticScot

p 10

Only I don't say that on page 10. Not even close.

You are correct, sceptic Scot did say that he did not recall him posting a study on page 10.

Because at that point he had not posted a study and even said so just a bit further down the page....

a reply to: zosimov

originally posted by: nonspecific
You are correct, sceptic Scot did say that he did not recall him posting a study on page 10.

Because at that point he had not posted a study and even said so just a bit further down the page....

a reply to: zosimov

He claimed i said there was no study.

That seems to be ab outright lie.

He's also said that you've lost the argument now.

To be honest I'd have thought if that decision was his to make he'd have made it ages ago and saved us all some time.

We could have watched the football if we'd known.



a reply to: ScepticScot

originally posted by: nonspecific
You are correct, sceptic Scot did say that he did not recall him posting a study on page 10.

Because at that point he had not posted a study and even said so just a bit further down the page....

a reply to: zosimov

I am sorry but you have all lost the debate with the range of unsubstantiated claims that you have made. It's simple you accept defeat and you move on.
Here are the results that contradict those who believe in the vaccine ideology

Results: In the non-elderly population the “number needed to treat” to prevent a single death runs into the thousands. Re-analysis of randomised controlled trials using the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology suggests a greater risk of serious adverse events from the vaccines than being hospitalised from COVID-19. Pharmacovigilance systems and real-world safety data, coupled with plausible mechanisms of harm, are deeply concerning, especially in relation to cardiovascular safety. Mirroring a potential signal from the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, a significant rise in cardiac arrest calls to ambulances in England was seen in 2021, with similar data emerging from Israel in the 16–39-year-old age group.

Conclusion: It cannot be said that the consent to receive these agents was fully informed, as is required ethically and legally. A pause and reappraisal of global vaccination policies for COVID-19 is long overdue.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Who said he hadn't published anything?

You have said that he hasn't published the paper he did earlier. And then you upgraded your argument that it's not a peer reviewed paper after it was made clear that he did publish the paper.

Please link to where i said he hadn't published the paper.

I am sorry you need to go back and see it for yourself.

So you can't find where I said it.

Probably because I didn't

So are you lying or mistaken?

It's tool late now to deflect as you have lost the argument long time ago by making a range of unsubstantiated claims including the one above and that the paper is not peer reviewed in addition to be calling Dr Malhotra biased and his study not proper research.

You need to reflect on your posts.

No deflection.

You made a specific claim aboutt what I said.

That seems to be a lie.

As you are a liar why should we give anything you say credibility?

originally posted by: nonspecific
He's also said that you've lost the argument now.

To be honest I'd have thought if that decision was his to make he'd have made it ages ago and saved us all some time.

We could have watched the football if we'd known.



a reply to: ScepticScot

Apparently you have lost now as well.

Just bloody inconsiderate of him.

I know, and to top it all off I lost by him posting the same copied text from earlier.

I suppose if I'd just been sensible and taken the doctors opinion as gospel truth without question I'd have saved not just time but my reputation as I look like a right Muppet now.


a reply to: ScepticScot

originally posted by: nonspecific
I know, and to top it all off I lost by him posting the same copied text from earlier.

I suppose if I'd just been sensible and taken the doctors opinion as gospel truth without question I'd have saved not just time but my reputation as I look like a right Muppet now.


a reply to: ScepticScot

The person above has made the following claims

1) Dr Malhotra expressing his personal opinions and hasn't published any work.

This isn't true though. You can see the study.

2) The work published isn't peer reviewed. That's not true either as the paper was submitted back in June and published in September after going through peer review.

3) Dr Malhotra is biased and he states personal opinions without any evidence. That's not true either as it wouldn't have gone through a peer review.

4) This is not research or study!!! So what exactly was published and peer reviewed in this paper? Any thoughts?! It seems anyone can walk into an immunology journal and publish whatever gets in his/her mind.

5) Now he is claiming that this isn't proper research!!! Can you give me the definition of proper research?


A range of unsubstantiated claims and desperate arguments as the study doesn't fit the vaccine ideology.

And of course all these have been dismantled long time ago.

a reply to: Asmodeus3


Still lying I see.

I haven't seen such desperate claims and arguments that doubt everyone and everything.
It seems that they didn't even know where the burden of proof is.

Is the burden of proof on a peer reviewed paper or on some keyboard warriors who present arguments that shoe lack of understanding of the basic principles in science and research.

I mean it is just hilarious.

I'm confused now?

If you have clearly proved us all wrong and won the debate as you claim then why are you continuing to post?

Surely there is nothing left to say on the matter and anymore involvement in this thread would just be a waste of your time?

You've told us that you won and that's that.

Thanks for setting me straight. If you see me making any more errors of judgment round here please do me a favour and let me know before I make too much of a tit of myself in public.


a reply to: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: nonspecific
I'm confused now?

If.tou have clearly.proved us all wrong and won the debate as you claim then why are you continuing to post?

Surely there is nothing left to.say on the matter and anymore involvement in this thread would just be a waste of your time?

You've told us that you won and that's that.

Thanks for setting me straight. If you see me making any more errors of judgment round here please do me a favour and let me know before I make too much of a tit of myself in public.


a reply to: Asmodeus3

And clearly as its peer reviewed it can't be disputed so all other scientists agree.

Would have thought I would have heard more about that somehow.

originally posted by: nonspecific
I'm confused now?

If.tou have clearly.proved us all wrong and won the debate as you claim then why are you continuing to post?

Surely there is nothing left to.say on the matter and anymore involvement in this thread would just be a waste of your time?

You've told us that you won and that's that.

Thanks for setting me straight. If you see me making any more errors of judgment round here please do me a favour and let me know before I make too much of a tit of myself in public.


a reply to: Asmodeus3

I reply to your replies.

Still I need to see some good evidence on the claims made by your side. There is nothing though.

Yes the paper is peer reviewed, contrary to the claims made and despite the fact that you guys don't read any papers.

Yes it is 'proper' research, contrary to the claims made.

Yes, Dr Malhotra isn't biased contrary to the personal unsubstantiated opinions.

If any of you have doubts and valid claims then make a rebuttal and ask the journal to retract the paper. But you need more than personal opinions which don't fit your ideology. A good analysis and evaluation of the data will do.