New Peer Reviewed Study Shows 94% Of Vaxxt Have Significant Blood Abnormalities

a reply to: TheRedneck

and that is completely irrelevant. What does the location of the server on which data is contained have to do with the veracity of the data?

If the data were genuine why would it need to use subterfuge? It's like asking why PS5 costs $200 and then seeing that it's being advertized on www.amazone.com, not www.amazon.com

This is the biggest load of hogwash I have ever heard, and it is an argument that makes me want to immediately go somewhere else. The very idea that information cannot be true unless some faceless government agency or university funds the study is the very antithesis of science.

The people who made the claims do not have a demonstratable track record in this area of study. Yet managed to find things that people who do have a track record in this area couldn't?

Two points here: just because something is not found, it does not mean that something does not exist

Lack of reputation speaks to lack of credibility. If it did exist it should be labeled on the paper. That's standard procedure.

Yes, there is. That is an out-and-out lie. The paper specifies what research was conducted and on whom under what conditions, quite clearly.

Most of it was about the techniques used, not the research conducted, the rest was gibberish.

The fact that a paper contains information that has appeared before is about as far from a condemnation of the the stated information as one can get.

Reposting already debunked conspiracies doesn't make it any less a conspiracy or any less debunked.

That's why no one pays you any attention.

You did, and you sound mighty angry about it.

You were taken in by a slick looking hoax created by someone who took advantage of you not having a scientific background, he blinded you with fancy words, and now you feel angry and are lashing out at me for telling you the truth.

The people behind this site have a history of vaccine related hoaxing, especially in regards to claims that vaccines cause autism. Doesn't this make you question their motives even a little?

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: ScepticScot

An issue that I keep seeing more and more is there's now a lot of very dubious "journals" that are popping up and publishing "peer reviewed studies and articles.

I'm pretty sure that you and me could spend an afternoon and about 30 quid and set up something that had all of the qualifications to look like and claim to be a peer reviewed journal.

Before the internet explosion these were all published in hard copy but now anyone can do it for almost no time or money.

Real scientists know what's what but us ordinary folk don't have the experience to spot a shifty one at 600 yards.

They're known as predatory publishers and have a tendency to use slight spelling variations of legitimate scientific journals; but the peers are homeopaths, chiropractors, accupuncturists and other bat# mental stuff that violates basic scientific laws.

I've been trying to explain the obvious warning signs to the OP and others for the last few years but for some reason it just gets ignored.

Beall's list

a reply to: TheRedneck

You're wasting your breath.

The people who preach science the loudest around here have zero idea how its actually done.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: TheRedneck

You're wasting your breath.

The people who preach science the loudest around here have zero idea how its actually done.

I'm not sure why the 77th Brigade is so worried about what people think on ATS.

originally posted by: incoserv
a reply to: slatesteam

No, not bombastic at all! Solid truth well stated.

Thanks. I’m no scientist. But I am a Natural Historian by nature and Synchronist by schooling.

I see things a bit different. As to the validity of anything that provides a negative light, anecdotally, epidemiologically, or uses hard science, I’m not holding my breath it’ll ever see the light of day, and if it DOES, then the usual crowd will just cry foul and whine about it being BS.

See www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: AaarghZombies

You wouldn't go to a dentist to have the transmission on your truck fixed, and you wouldn't go to an auto dealership to have a retainer fitted.

And here comes the hyperbole.

If I went to a dentist and he saw a growth in the back of my mouth, I wouldn't ignore it because "he's just a dentist." No, he is not an ear-mouth-throat specialist, but he doesn't have to be to know that there's a problem. If I took my car to a transmission specialist to have the transmission worked on, and they told me the road on my way home was closed, I wouldn't ignore them because they only work on transmissions.

When it comes to science some things can be very compartmentalized, so being an expert in one field doesn't necessarily make you an authority in another.

One need not be "an authority" to understand when there is a problem. My degree is in electrical; I can still work on my car. I can still analyze a structure for integrity (I was trained in structural engineering in my earlier years, but received no degree). Compartmentalization is often indicated and useful to distribute workload, but it does not preclude crossover between disciplines either.

I have a PCP and a Cardiologist. Which one do I listen to when I am having heart issues? BOTH OF THEM! To do otherwise would be foolish IMO. If there is a conflict, I question why each one is taking the position they are taking and break that tie myself based on who seems to have the most reasonable position for me.

Though it could give you enough knowledge of the type of language to use to sound authoritative to people who don't understand the topic enough to know better.

First Rule of Engineering: "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS."

It's good that you know the principle... it's bad that you fall for the very thing that principle is there to help you prevent. Fancy words exist in every field, and in medical fields they are astronomically frequent and confusing. There are only three, count 'em, three, reasons to use technospeak: when writing for others in one's field (as in scientific papers), in the rare case where there are no simpler phrases that convey the information (and it then becomes incumbent to define the technical terms used), and when the intent is to confuse others to make oneself look "smart."

If one is not reading a medical journal and the source does not define the technical terms used, that leaves the latter... question them.

You look at the degrees and the location of the source first. Then, if that satisfies your personal preference,you look at the actual data and interpret it based on how many technical terms are used and whether or not it coincides with what you want to believe. If it does coincide, you interpret the technospeak to be a positive ("He uses the technology so he's smart and knows what he's talking about"), but if it does not coincide with your beliefs you interpret it as a negative ("He's obviously using big words to look smart when he's just being confusing"). At no point do you actually consider the information presented. It's all a cult of personality to you.

I reject that attitude outright. Go back and look at the review I gave this study: I did not state that it was correct; I stated that the results coincided with previous studies and thus there needed to be caution used until more studies are performed. I also attacked the language as appearing biased, but stated I saw no obvious bias in the data obtained. That's science.

You immediately went after the authors over some "compartmentalization" nonsense taken to extremes and then used one of the most obviously biased attempts to refute a paper for any reason they can find, even to the point of asking readers for help, that I have yet to read. That is politics.

You want to talk politics, that's fine... talk politics. If you want to talk science, that's fine... talk science. But when you try to talk science using politics, I am going to call you out on it EVERY SINGLE TIME.

TheRedneck

a reply to: AaarghZombies

If the data were genuine why would it need to use subterfuge?

What subterfuge?

Not everyone has access to scientific journals. I no longer have access to IEEE; if I publish something, it will have to be done through an alternate medium. I cannot justify $212 per year when I might go several years before needing access; I am disabled on a fixed income. Other journals are much higher, some costing thousands of dollars per year for access.

Not every article will be accepted by a journal. All journals use an editorial review (not a peer review; that is incorrect and I believe stems form a lack of understanding of the process) before they can be published. Often, that editorial review is based not just on a scientific leaning but a political one as well. In the case of the vaccines, where practicing doctors have told me directly that their licensing through the AMA has been threatened over resistance to vaccinations, there is certainly a political consideration and a strong one.

In simple terms, what you are demanding is that no one can present any information that is not politically approved. I reject that out of hand.

The people who made the claims do not have a demonstratable track record in this area of study. Yet managed to find things that people who do have a track record in this area couldn't?

Couldn't, or wouldn't?

There is no one in any field who did not at one time lack a "demonstrable track record." Therefore, according to you, there can never be another expert in any field. I wonder what we'll all do when all the experts die off? Probably go with whoever has played the politics game all their career and thus have managed to get a "demonstrable track record" from TPTB.

Lack of reputation speaks to lack of credibility.

Only for you. Einstein was a patent clerk when he started publishing. He had no reputation, yet his theories were correct (if, as I believe, incomplete).

Truth is not dependent on your experience.

Most of it was about the techniques used, not the research conducted, the rest was gibberish.

The techniques used define the research conducted. As for "the rest being gibberish," that simply means you didn't understand it. I found it pretty easy to follow for a medical paper... as I mentioned, medical loves their technospeak.

Reposting already debunked conspiracies doesn't make it any less a conspiracy or any less debunked.

Any idiot with a laptop can write a "debunking" article. Blog web hosts are so cheap, some are even free. HTML can be written in Notepad. I know; I used to have several websites until I grew tired of them. I could make a blog, get a fancy-sounding url, write a web page to "debunk" the idea that the planet is round, all in a couple days with less cost than I spent on a half tank of gas before inflation went hyper.

And the planet will still not be flat.

You did, and you sound mighty angry about it.

Frustrated would be a better term. I have spent my life using science, conducting experiments, designing equipment, and trying to understand the universe. And now, suddenly, every Tom, Dick, and Harry who has the mental capacity to barely type out a post or a web page is trying to tell me how science works.

Yeah, I'm frustrated. You're one of them.

You were taken in by a slick looking hoax created by someone who took advantage of you not having a scientific background

OK, Mr. Know-it-all... that's quite enough. You're here spouting misinformation left and right, and now you insult someone who has spent more time in scientific study in the last week than you obviously have in your entire life? I have better things to do with my time than listen to you spout outright lies. I have said my piece: you're about as chock full of BS as you can get... any more and a sneeze would contaminate the water table around you for a three mile radius.

Enjoy your utter ignorance.

TheRedneck

a reply to: face23785

You're wasting your breath.

The people who preach science the loudest around here have zero idea how its actually done.

Yes, i know.

Too many people today seem to think they're "following science." In actuality, what they're doing is more like someone following a trail of small rocks in a gravel parking lot.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

But what if he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night??

originally posted by: slatesteam
a reply to: TheRedneck Thank you for the response.

Regardless of what is in the shots or what appears to be “graphene-oxidesque”, 94% of samples with blood abnormalities should raise some eyebrows as to what it is they say they’ve discovered in this paper.

In other words, if this is even remotely true it reveals we are in deep sh!t. If we don’t find a countermeasure for those that have taken this, soon, your surmising about capillaries being congested and clogged sounds like a ticking bomb. For some it’s too late already.

Strange they aren’t reporting the young athletes dying the way they were initially….

I suspect really dark times ahead.

Very unlikely it will be me though or some other of the members here. I think our bloods have no abnormalities simply because we were not naive or stupid enough to get injected with a product that nobody knew nothing about it, a product for which its safety has not been established and won't be established for years to come, a product for which we don't know the short, medium, and long terms effects and the benefit to risk ratio for different age groups. We don't even know the constituents and ingredients of this hypothetical vaccine.

It is really worrying that there could be abnormalities in the blood of vaccinated individuals just as much worrying that two scientists, Dr Malhotra who called for the vaccine program to be suspended due to vaccine safety issues affecting the young and healthy, and Dr Ladapo who is the state surgeon general (Florida) and has recommended that 18-39 year old male should not use the vaccine.

I am not quite sure whether people still thinking of getting vaccinated. The third dose isn't very popular and most have lost interest. However many were vaccinated with two doses.

I also see the vaccine ideology is still very strong and going on, and a lot of vaccine apologetics as usual with the focus of promoting personal unsubstantiated views as facts and propagandise in the name of science without any relevance to any of the fields.

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: ScepticScot

An issue that I keep seeing more and more is there's now a lot of very dubious "journals" that are popping up and publishing "peer reviewed studies and articles.

I'm pretty sure that you and me could spend an afternoon and about 30 quid and set up something that had all of the qualifications to look like and claim to be a peer reviewed journal.

Before the internet explosion these were all published in hard copy but now anyone can do it for almost no time or money.

Real scientists know what's what but us ordinary folk don't have the experience to spot a shifty one at 600 yards.

They're known as predatory publishers and have a tendency to use slight spelling variations of legitimate scientific journals; but the peers are homeopaths, chiropractors, accupuncturists and other bat# mental stuff that violates basic scientific laws.

I've been trying to explain the obvious warning signs to the OP and others for the last few years but for some reason it just gets ignored.

Beall's list

I agree there are predatory publishers and haven't looked into this one. However, this last few years has proven to me that the allopathic medical system, statisticians, governments have all violated not only scientific laws but crossed massive ethical lines.

Science cannot be upheld when whistleblowers are censored as all that is left is one sided bias which is no better than claims made by less traditional practices that, at least, have placebo effect going for them because the patients are going to them voluntarily.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: nonspecific

Would the fact that one of the authors of the paper is a dentist and another is an acupuncturist explain the issues you see in the paper?

No.

Some people really need to overcome this cult of personality that seems to be overtaking the scientific world.

TheRedneck

Otherwise we may end up with a computer software engineer dictating world health policy.

originally posted by: igloo

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: nonspecific

Would the fact that one of the authors of the paper is a dentist and another is an acupuncturist explain the issues you see in the paper?

No.

Some people really need to overcome this cult of personality that seems to be overtaking the scientific world.

TheRedneck

Otherwise we may end up with a computer software engineer dictating world health policy.

That's already happening and Shill Gates gives more money to the WHO than the US government.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: TheRedneck

and that is completely irrelevant. What does the location of the server on which data is contained have to do with the veracity of the data?

If the data were genuine why would it need to use subterfuge? It's like asking why PS5 costs $200 and then seeing that it's being advertized on www.amazone.com, not www.amazon.com

This is the biggest load of hogwash I have ever heard, and it is an argument that makes me want to immediately go somewhere else. The very idea that information cannot be true unless some faceless government agency or university funds the study is the very antithesis of science.

The people who made the claims do not have a demonstratable track record in this area of study. Yet managed to find things that people who do have a track record in this area couldn't?

Two points here: just because something is not found, it does not mean that something does not exist

Lack of reputation speaks to lack of credibility. If it did exist it should be labeled on the paper. That's standard procedure.

Yes, there is. That is an out-and-out lie. The paper specifies what research was conducted and on whom under what conditions, quite clearly.

Most of it was about the techniques used, not the research conducted, the rest was gibberish.

The fact that a paper contains information that has appeared before is about as far from a condemnation of the the stated information as one can get.

Reposting already debunked conspiracies doesn't make it any less a conspiracy or any less debunked.

That's why no one pays you any attention.

You did, and you sound mighty angry about it.

You were taken in by a slick looking hoax created by someone who took advantage of you not having a scientific background, he blinded you with fancy words, and now you feel angry and are lashing out at me for telling you the truth.

The people behind this site have a history of vaccine related hoaxing, especially in regards to claims that vaccines cause autism. Doesn't this make you question their motives even a little?

I think you make a lot of assumptions of who is having a scientific background and who hasn't got any background at all. There is plenty of confusion in your arguments and a record of quite desperate attempts to 'debunk' links and sources which don't verify your vaccine ideology and your dogmatic views.

You say that the site has a history of vaccine related hoaxing. I can point out that your arguments have a history of vaccine ideology and vaccine apologetics as they disregard all facts and data in regards to the harms caused by the vaccine.

Vaccine apology and ideology are not very convincing and of anything they have the opposite effect.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Is there a chance that between gathering this data and committing it paper, understanding the horror of what they'd found would make any scientist, physician, or statistician a little biased?

The numerous dots that this data would connect in the mind of an expert would surely lead to some shockingly dark places. Can it then be said that the writing is pretty restrained?

I'm certainly not saying that means this is authentic, just that there are many wrinkles when trying to asses authenticity in matters this epic and grave.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

It looks like those who trusted the science before but didn't understand it now have to pay for it.

a reply to: McGinty

Absolutely...

if you "listen between the lines" in most of these papers, you will see a subtle attempt to warn people away.

They all start off glowingly talking about how many lives have been saved by the vaxx, and typically in their conclusions or discussion, the state that we should move forward with an abundance of caution. They can't come out and say that "This # will kill you" or they'd be censored, cancelled, and run out of business.

This paper is putting forth the proposition that the spike protein in the vaxx is just as dangerous for many as the spike protein in the original virus when it comes to neurological issues, and that it may contribute to Parkinson's disease.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

7. Discussion
Few would have thought, when the COVID-19 pandemic was declared in early 2020 and labeled as a respiratory illness, that discussion would progress to the question of serious neurological consequences. We have already recognized the need to closely monitor and screen for α-synuclein prions in patients who have experienced neurological complications, but what about people who have been vaccinated? Over this past year, there have been several publications indicating that the neurological side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines are extremely rare. This is true for the more serious adverse events as stated by the authors, considering the number of actual doses administered [30,31,32,33]. However, that does not detract from the fact that these individuals need to be followed up. In addition, it is worth noting that according to the label [34] of the recently FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine “COMIRNATY”, submitted by BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH (in partnership with Pfizer Inc.), the occurrence of acute neurological symptoms (i.e., fatigue and/or headaches), although not considered to be serious, were high, especially in the younger age group (16 through to 55 years of age). Such neurological symptoms, especially if prolonged, could well be indicative of inflammation, which can act as the trigger giving rise to synucleinopathies such as Parkinson’s disease up to two to three decades post-immunization [21]. Therefore, individuals who have experienced adverse neurological effects after being administered a COVID-19 vaccine should also be followed up.

Of interest is the mode of action of the COVID-19 vaccines currently used, where the end product is the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the intended target being the antigen-presenting cells of the immune system. However, there are indications that the spike protein generated by these vaccines may have off-target effects [17,34,35,36]. There is no evidence that distribution and/or toxicokinetic studies of the spike protein were performed [34,37]. With this in mind, it would be prudent to follow up subjects who experience neurological side effects as a result of the COVID-19 vaccines, in addition to the hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who had neurological complications. With the COVID-19 vaccines, an assumption was made that the spike protein produced in the host cells would not be shed into the systemic circulation. Hence, additional data are required to determine the toxicity and distribution of the spike protein, which is already known to cause disease. Perhaps a standard 28-day study with good laboratory practice could be initiated that not only mimics the concentration that enters the plasma post-vaccination [24] but also exceeds it, in order to provide a good safety margin in a suitable species. Other regulated studies may also be deemed appropriate to fill the knowledge gap. The Guidance for Industry that perhaps should have been used is the Preclinical Assessment of Investigational Cellular and Gene Therapy Products [38], although, like the Development and Licensure of Vaccines to Prevent COVID-19 Guidance for Industry [39], in which the recommendations were also non-binding, the former guidance does recommend more extensive non-clinical studies—including full histopathology—and in the introduction states: “The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)/Office of Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies (OCTGT) is issuing this guidance to provide sponsors and individuals that design and implement preclinical studies with recommendations on the substance and scope of preclinical information needed to support clinical trials for investigational cellular therapies, gene therapies, therapeutic vaccines, xenotransplantation, and certain biologic–device combination products which OCTGT reviews (hereinafter referred to as CGT products).”.

Until such definitive studies are carried out and results substantiated, it lends consideration for caution when deciding whether to administer the COVID-19 vaccines to the younger age groups.

a reply to: nugget1

Exactly. I actually did a thread on Morgellon's years ago. Never thought they would actually deploy this insidious disease...

My Old Thread on Morgellon's

originally posted by: MaxxAction
a reply to: McGinty

Absolutely...

if you "listen between the lines" in most of these papers, you will see a subtle attempt to warn people away.

They all start off glowingly talking about how many lives have been saved by the vaxx, and typically in their conclusions or discussion, the state that we should move forward with an abundance of caution. They can't come out and say that "This # will kill you" or they'd be censored, cancelled, and run out of business.

This paper is putting forth the proposition that the spike protein in the vaxx is just as dangerous for many as the spike protein in the original virus when it comes to neurological issues, and that it may contribute to Parkinson's disease.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

7. Discussion
Few would have thought, when the COVID-19 pandemic was declared in early 2020 and labeled as a respiratory illness, that discussion would progress to the question of serious neurological consequences. We have already recognized the need to closely monitor and screen for α-synuclein prions in patients who have experienced neurological complications, but what about people who have been vaccinated? Over this past year, there have been several publications indicating that the neurological side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines are extremely rare. This is true for the more serious adverse events as stated by the authors, considering the number of actual doses administered [30,31,32,33]. However, that does not detract from the fact that these individuals need to be followed up. In addition, it is worth noting that according to the label [34] of the recently FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine “COMIRNATY”, submitted by BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH (in partnership with Pfizer Inc.), the occurrence of acute neurological symptoms (i.e., fatigue and/or headaches), although not considered to be serious, were high, especially in the younger age group (16 through to 55 years of age). Such neurological symptoms, especially if prolonged, could well be indicative of inflammation, which can act as the trigger giving rise to synucleinopathies such as Parkinson’s disease up to two to three decades post-immunization [21]. Therefore, individuals who have experienced adverse neurological effects after being administered a COVID-19 vaccine should also be followed up.

Of interest is the mode of action of the COVID-19 vaccines currently used, where the end product is the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the intended target being the antigen-presenting cells of the immune system. However, there are indications that the spike protein generated by these vaccines may have off-target effects [17,34,35,36]. There is no evidence that distribution and/or toxicokinetic studies of the spike protein were performed [34,37]. With this in mind, it would be prudent to follow up subjects who experience neurological side effects as a result of the COVID-19 vaccines, in addition to the hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who had neurological complications. With the COVID-19 vaccines, an assumption was made that the spike protein produced in the host cells would not be shed into the systemic circulation. Hence, additional data are required to determine the toxicity and distribution of the spike protein, which is already known to cause disease. Perhaps a standard 28-day study with good laboratory practice could be initiated that not only mimics the concentration that enters the plasma post-vaccination [24] but also exceeds it, in order to provide a good safety margin in a suitable species. Other regulated studies may also be deemed appropriate to fill the knowledge gap. The Guidance for Industry that perhaps should have been used is the Preclinical Assessment of Investigational Cellular and Gene Therapy Products [38], although, like the Development and Licensure of Vaccines to Prevent COVID-19 Guidance for Industry [39], in which the recommendations were also non-binding, the former guidance does recommend more extensive non-clinical studies—including full histopathology—and in the introduction states: “The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)/Office of Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies (OCTGT) is issuing this guidance to provide sponsors and individuals that design and implement preclinical studies with recommendations on the substance and scope of preclinical information needed to support clinical trials for investigational cellular therapies, gene therapies, therapeutic vaccines, xenotransplantation, and certain biologic–device combination products which OCTGT reviews (hereinafter referred to as CGT products).”.

Until such definitive studies are carried out and results substantiated, it lends consideration for caution when deciding whether to administer the COVID-19 vaccines to the younger age groups.

Referring to your last paragraph, those under the age of 50 should have never been given there products in the first place.

Just as Kate Bingham said back in October 2020. She was the chair of the UK's vaccine task force when she described that we don't want to cause any freak accident giving these products to young and healthy individuals and nobody under the age of 50 will get them. She added that this is an adult only vaccine for those over the age of 50.

Straightforward and correct message.

www.ft.com...