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

a reply to: TheRedneck

What subterfuge?

The misleading domain address for a start. Using a fake journal on top of that.

Not everyone has access to scientific journals.

If they have access to a public library, they do. You can request one from any state library collection. Or, just google, most have at least the abstract online.

Often, that editorial review is based not just on a scientific leaning but a political one as well
....

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.

No, I'm demanding that they publish real data through a real journal. Which this isn't.

Couldn't, or wouldn't?

You're saying that 100 percent or all scientific journals in the world are corrupt, and share the same politics regarding covid?

Given the bitter rivalries between some journals the idea that all of them would swing the same way is beyond credulity.

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.

The pendulum swings the other way here, these people have a demonstratable bad track record. The journal is editted by a know hoaxer. Google his name + Autism. See what you come across.

Any idiot with a laptop can write a "debunking" article.

Yes, but only other idiots with laptops will fall for it if it's not genuine. You can't successfully discredit a well written paper with a badly written debunk. People who understand the subject matter will pull it apart if you're "an idiot with a laptop".

I have spent my life using science, conducting experiments, designing equipment, and trying to understand the universe.

Then surely you can see that this is a fake document. Just read through. Every single image that isn't taken from one of the reference documents (which pre-date covid) are mislabelled. Not a single one of them shows what it is describing, in many cases the descriptions are gibberish.

From the actual text (page 12)

Images of crystalline aggregation, regular and modular, with apparent "self-similar attitudes of fractal nature

It reads like it was run through Google translate a couple of time. It probably means "crystals formed in the sample", but the author doesn't know enough about the subject to know that you can't just string those words together like that because you're repeating the same thing in a different way.

Even a half competent editor should have caught this.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

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.

Maybe there worried that people "doing their own research" might read some of the garbage that is being posted and believe that it's true.

Rather than denying ignorance ATS would be a net source of it.

When fake articles are amplified through sites like this one people end up less informed, rather than more. Fear, uncertainty and doubt are not what ATS should be selling to the public.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

And she's still alive and holds her position??

I remember pretty early on, the WHO put some pretty face out there at one of their press conferences, and she announced that asymptomatic spread of covid did not exist. She didn't do any more press conferences, and the next one they had they walked that back right quick. Canned for telling the truth. Down is up, darkness is light, bitter is sweet, etc., etc.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

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.

Unlike the senior editor, a man named Christopher Shaw, I didn't have two papers by the WHO for gross ethical violations, I also didn't accept money from the Dwoskin Family Foundation.

You can look them up if you like:

"Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?" Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry. 105: 1489–1499.

"Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they safe?" Current Medicinal Chemistry. 18(17): 2630–2637.

I'm also going to challange you on where I've "all facts and data in regards to the harms caused by the vaccine", a simple link to the comment or thread would suffice.

My sources for the vax being both safe an effective are in my signature. They're primarily take from well-respected peer review journal articles or independently officiated agencies.

Your sources ... seem to mostly be bitchute.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

I hate to do this; I really, really do. But truth is truth... this source is biased.

On page 18, in the Conclusions, it makes a rather obvious (to me) mistake, and one that should have never been made by anyone with any chemical training.

that metallic particles resembling graphene oxide and possibly other metallic compounds

Graphene oxide is not a metal. It is composed of carbon and oxygen. Neither carbon nor oxygen are "metallic." Both are classified as non-metals.

The use of politically-charged extraneous phrases also bothers me. Again from page 18

parallel analysis of the fluids in vials of the mRNA concoctions

The word "concoction" is a generally negatively-connotated word that has no real basis in a scientific paper. It implies a mixture which is poorly regulated or understood. "Poorly understood" may be accurate, but certainly "poorly regulated" would be a misnomer. A better term would have been simply "mixture," as it carries no such connotation.

Another example of this is

have been included in the cocktail of whatever the manufacturers have seen fit to put in the so-called mRNA “vaccines”.

In a general debate among the general public, I expect to see terms like those bolded above; in a scientific paper I do not. Both phrases connotate a fraudulent attempt by the manufacturers to deceive. While that may indeed be the case, such accusatory phrasing belongs in a discussion of legality or ethics, not in a scientific paper.

Now, all that said, I did look at the actual evidence that was presented anyway. There are definitely some abnormalities in the red blood cells and their distribution, and there does seem to definitely be some fibrous material that, if it is supposed to be there in a healthy body, I was unaware of it. I am not overly convinced with the sample size, but it is well-documented and the fact that this paper shows duplication of a previous similar study using an alternate method tells me the information is accurate, at least on the face of it.

At the very least, even with the negative points I make above, that to my mind says there is more than enough evidence to conduct larger studies to verify these results. I would also consider it as quite sufficient to back off of any FDA approval process until additional studies have been conducted and analyzed.

Incidentally, so far as it being "peer-reviewed"... this paper is a peer review of the previous Korean study it mentions; I saw nothing about it being peer-reviewed itself (although I would suspect it has been since it is published, and this post is actually a peer review in itself, albeit somewhat superficial... it's late and I'm tired). Nor would I expect it to. Do you have any of the reviews available?

TheRedneck

LOL..You claim “this source is biased” and then you wind it all up by admitting you know really nothing of the source. You must have been exhausted!

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

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.

Unlike the senior editor, a man named Christopher Shaw, I didn't have two papers by the WHO for gross ethical violations, I also didn't accept money from the Dwoskin Family Foundation.

You can look them up if you like:

"Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?" Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry. 105: 1489–1499.

"Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they safe?" Current Medicinal Chemistry. 18(17): 2630–2637.

I'm also going to challange you on where I've "all facts and data in regards to the harms caused by the vaccine", a simple link to the comment or thread would suffice.

My sources for the vax being both safe an effective are in my signature. They're primarily take from well-respected peer review journal articles or independently officiated agencies.

Your sources ... seem to mostly be bitchute.

Another unsubstantiated claim is n relation to my sources that are mainly from...bitchute. Anyone can have a look at my profile and see that I use a range of sources with plenty of scientific publications.

Your signature is irrelevant to us here on these threads. Unless you post your sources in these threads just as everyone else you have used nothing i.e no sources. Nobody is obliged to look what you have posted elsewhere.

The harms from the vaccine are already recorded in well established papers and reviews. But I forgot that you have called them 'flawed' and insignificant and together with other members, the scientists behind them, as quacks, charlatans and crackpots, as they don't fit your vaccine ideology.

All I see is vaccine apology and denialism of facts and that's why your arguments have been repeatedly refuted.

If you believe you have the evidence and expertise you can write a research paper and go to peer review. Don't forget to include the short, medium and long term effects from the vaccines as well as the risk to benefit ratio in all age groups.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

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.

Unlike the senior editor, a man named Christopher Shaw, I didn't have two papers by the WHO for gross ethical violations, I also didn't accept money from the Dwoskin Family Foundation.

You can look them up if you like:

"Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?" Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry. 105: 1489–1499.

"Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they safe?" Current Medicinal Chemistry. 18(17): 2630–2637.

I'm also going to challange you on where I've "all facts and data in regards to the harms caused by the vaccine", a simple link to the comment or thread would suffice.

My sources for the vax being both safe an effective are in my signature. They're primarily take from well-respected peer review journal articles or independently officiated agencies.

Your sources ... seem to mostly be bitchute.

Another unsubstantiated claim is n relation to my sources that are mainly from...bitchute. Anyone can have a look at my profile and see that I use a range of sources with plenty of scientific publications.

Your signature is irrelevant to us here on these threads. Unless you post your sources in these threads just as everyone else you have used nothing i.e no sources. Nobody is obliged to look what you have posted elsewhere.

The harms from the vaccine are already recorded in well established papers and reviews. But I forgot that you have called them 'flawed' and insignificant and together with other members the scientists behind them as quacks, charlatans and crackpots as they don't for your vaccine ideology.

All I see is vaccine apology and denialism of facts and that's why your arguments have been repeatedly refuted.

If you believe you have the evidence and expertise you can write a research paper and go to peer review. Don't forget to include the short, medium and long term effects from the vaccines as well as the risk to benefit ratio in all age groups.

It's funny how every single study that shows the vaccines cause harm are flawed. All 1500 of them. I'm guessing there will never ever be a legit study that finds they caused harm like they do with every other drug ever created. This is the safest drug in history, safer than water. It's a miracle!

originally posted by: Roedeer

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

I hate to do this; I really, really do. But truth is truth... this source is biased.

On page 18, in the Conclusions, it makes a rather obvious (to me) mistake, and one that should have never been made by anyone with any chemical training.

that metallic particles resembling graphene oxide and possibly other metallic compounds

Graphene oxide is not a metal. It is composed of carbon and oxygen. Neither carbon nor oxygen are "metallic." Both are classified as non-metals.

The use of politically-charged extraneous phrases also bothers me. Again from page 18

parallel analysis of the fluids in vials of the mRNA concoctions

The word "concoction" is a generally negatively-connotated word that has no real basis in a scientific paper. It implies a mixture which is poorly regulated or understood. "Poorly understood" may be accurate, but certainly "poorly regulated" would be a misnomer. A better term would have been simply "mixture," as it carries no such connotation.

Another example of this is

have been included in the cocktail of whatever the manufacturers have seen fit to put in the so-called mRNA “vaccines”.

In a general debate among the general public, I expect to see terms like those bolded above; in a scientific paper I do not. Both phrases connotate a fraudulent attempt by the manufacturers to deceive. While that may indeed be the case, such accusatory phrasing belongs in a discussion of legality or ethics, not in a scientific paper.

Now, all that said, I did look at the actual evidence that was presented anyway. There are definitely some abnormalities in the red blood cells and their distribution, and there does seem to definitely be some fibrous material that, if it is supposed to be there in a healthy body, I was unaware of it. I am not overly convinced with the sample size, but it is well-documented and the fact that this paper shows duplication of a previous similar study using an alternate method tells me the information is accurate, at least on the face of it.

At the very least, even with the negative points I make above, that to my mind says there is more than enough evidence to conduct larger studies to verify these results. I would also consider it as quite sufficient to back off of any FDA approval process until additional studies have been conducted and analyzed.

Incidentally, so far as it being "peer-reviewed"... this paper is a peer review of the previous Korean study it mentions; I saw nothing about it being peer-reviewed itself (although I would suspect it has been since it is published, and this post is actually a peer review in itself, albeit somewhat superficial... it's late and I'm tired). Nor would I expect it to. Do you have any of the reviews available?

TheRedneck

LOL..You claim “this source is biased” and then you wind it all up by admitting you know really nothing of the source. You must have been exhausted!

This is a classical tactic by the vaccine apologists who have no evidence about anything , but yet they call links and sources, including research papers, as biased and flawed.

They don't hesitate to call the scientists behind these publications as charlatans, quacks, crackpots, etc.

They have lost the arguments long time ago.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

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.

Unlike the senior editor, a man named Christopher Shaw, I didn't have two papers by the WHO for gross ethical violations, I also didn't accept money from the Dwoskin Family Foundation.

You can look them up if you like:

"Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?" Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry. 105: 1489–1499.

"Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they safe?" Current Medicinal Chemistry. 18(17): 2630–2637.

I'm also going to challange you on where I've "all facts and data in regards to the harms caused by the vaccine", a simple link to the comment or thread would suffice.

My sources for the vax being both safe an effective are in my signature. They're primarily take from well-respected peer review journal articles or independently officiated agencies.

Your sources ... seem to mostly be bitchute.

Another unsubstantiated claim is n relation to my sources that are mainly from...bitchute. Anyone can have a look at my profile and see that I use a range of sources with plenty of scientific publications.

Your signature is irrelevant to us here on these threads. Unless you post your sources in these threads just as everyone else you have used nothing i.e no sources. Nobody is obliged to look what you have posted elsewhere.

The harms from the vaccine are already recorded in well established papers and reviews. But I forgot that you have called them 'flawed' and insignificant and together with other members the scientists behind them as quacks, charlatans and crackpots as they don't for your vaccine ideology.

All I see is vaccine apology and denialism of facts and that's why your arguments have been repeatedly refuted.

If you believe you have the evidence and expertise you can write a research paper and go to peer review. Don't forget to include the short, medium and long term effects from the vaccines as well as the risk to benefit ratio in all age groups.

It's funny how every single study that shows the vaccines cause harm are flawed. All 1500 of them. I'm guessing there will never ever be a legit study that finds they caused harm like they do with every other drug ever created. This is the safest drug in history, safer than water. It's a miracle!

It's called denialism and vaccine apologetics.
Clearly the truth and reality has an adverse effect on some people.

Thats because its meant to kill you. It was intentional.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Then surely you can see that this is a fake document.

All I see right now is I am talking to someone who wouldn't know how to begin to do a research experiment if it came pre-assembled with written instructions and step-by-step pictures.

I believe I have pointed that fact out well enough, and I thank you for your cooperation in showcasing your ignorance. I see no need to keep beating my head against a wall trying to teach you anything.

TheRedneck

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?

You did, and you sound mighty angry about it.

Do you have any idea why many people, worldwide, are angry?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Then surely you can see that this is a fake document.

All I see right now is I am talking to someone who wouldn't know how to begin to do a research experiment if it came pre-assembled with written instructions and step-by-step pictures.

I believe I have pointed that fact out well enough, and I thank you for your cooperation in showcasing your ignorance. I see no need to keep beating my head against a wall trying to teach you anything.

TheRedneck

It's more of a case of denialism and vaccine apologetics.

originally posted by: igloo

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?

You did, and you sound mighty angry about it.

Do you have any idea why many people, worldwide, are angry?

Yes, it's called playing dumb. IRL he would change his tune quick around these victims and their families.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: igloo

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?

You did, and you sound mighty angry about it.

Do you have any idea why many people, worldwide, are angry?

Yes, it's called playing dumb. IRL he would change his tune quick around these victims and their families.

His arguments are not convincing to the slightest. If anything more and more people become suspicious. It's actually good that there are these arbiters of truth around who may not have any valid arguments or formal education and try hard to 'debunk' others resulting in debunking themselves..

Vaccine apologetics and denialism of facts and reality can play well in the hands of those who try to expose the narrative.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

It's fake. Simple as that. Its mostly a cut and pastes about the technology used with some babble added in. Half of it is gibberish.

This isn't a peer review website, it's an anti vaxxer website set up to promote anti vaxxer views.

Okay it's not "Fake" .

It is for sure an Anti-Vax website and it is for sure Biased that is obvious and the wording is clearly slanted and not objective at all .

But it's not Fake , A study is a Study and the findings are real albeit poorly worded but none the less real and the findings would probably be interpreted in a far different light by Truly objective peers.

Just because information is damning to your narrative does not make it Fake .

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

If its badly written and biased then what's the chances of all the evidence being true though?

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

If its badly written and biased then what's the chances of all the evidence being true though?

I said poorly worded not ' Badly written ' , and what I mean by that is its worded in a biased manner but the over all Writing and structure of the paper is Professional enough .

Bias does not incur inaccuracy , Like I said its damning information but that does not make it false .

what's the chances of all the evidence being true though?

I would say the same chances that the CDC's numbers are accurate.

Damn man, 94% eh?

And I still don't know a single person of hundreds vaccinated to suffer worse than a sore arm and headache.

It's rather amazing, that.
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: hombero
Damn man, 94% eh?

And I still don't know a single person of hundreds vaccinated to suffer worse than a sore arm and headache.

It's rather amazing, that.
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

The world revolves around you right? No one said this was gonna be over by now. Let's see how you make out by 2025.