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

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

Is this a valid argument?

Or is it part of the vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality and facts?

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

interesting that ...

I didn't meet anyone in the years 2019 - 2021 who had the Flu Virus not a single person . Now as chance would have it there are 2 people in my social circle who have the Flu and many others I've heard have it this year .

All of this coming shortly after Joe Biden declared Covid-19 officially over .
Very Interesting that

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

It's almost as an obviously fake journal written by evangelical anti-vaxxers who've never read a paper in their lives so produce 'scientific papers' like how Bill Gates wants to inject people with 'the mark of the beast' Buying and Selling with the Mark of the Beast or Cyborgs R Us which proves Covid vaccines are nano-Bluetooth and everyone is emitting mind controlling MAC adresses or Covid-19 vaccines track crypto


Sadly it still gets posted on here as a credible peer-reviewed journal every couple of months (there's been several threads on this paper before).

a reply to: 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.

Really?

It's a known fact that high blood pressure comes with absolutely no symptoms in the vast majority of cases, but can lead to heart attacks and strokes nonetheless. Do you find that "rather amazing" too?

The study shows abnormalities. It does not show people with bad headaches. Abnormalities can exist without conscious knowledge of them or symptoms, but as in the case of high blood pressure, can literally become fatal overnight. You may not be aware of this, but the human body does not have a flashing neon sign built in to warn the user of all abnormalities early. You do not always get a two-minute warning.

TheRedneck

a reply to: bastion

Sadly it still gets posted on here as a credible peer-reviewed journal

First of all, there is no such thing as a "peer-reviewed journal." There are "peer-reviewed papers" but a journal has nothing to peer review. It is simply a publisher who purports to publish scientific papers.

There is no "authority" that decides which journals are "acceptable" and which are not. Often, certain journals tend to gain acceptance among the public over time and become a de facto "official" journal (such as IEEE for electrical/electronic research) but there is nothing whatsoever to demand that they are the only journals that may publish papers. Sometimes a journal which has gained acceptance over time will price itself out of favor... not everyone who does research has access to all journals because to do so would mean they had no money left over for their research.

I cannot justify the cost of IEEE membership at this time; therefore anything I publish will have to be through an alternate journal or through public publishing... probably the latter.

Incidentally, that is the big reason why so many grants are given through universities. A university can afford access to a wide number of journals and students can usually get low rates during their student tenure. Of course, that means universities can charge wild amounts for grants that they handle, too, and they do so. Standard is 50% of the grant goes directly to the school before the researcher sees a dime, just for mailing paperwork.

Secondly, it has been peer reviewed. I peer reviewed it on page 1 of this thread. So that's a lie.

Maybe you should read up on what peer review actually is. Hint: it is a review by one's peers.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Opinions may differ.

www.nlm.nih.gov...

Also about if anonymous poster on a conspiracy site counts as peer review.

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

a reply to: TheRedneck

It is my understanding that to be deemed "peer reviewed" the paper must be submitted for review prior to publication and any issues or revisions resolved before the publication is accepted?

I'm not sure you can class it as peer reviewed in its accepted manner retrospectively.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Also about if anonymous poster on a conspiracy site counts as peer review.

I think I have established my credentials sufficiently in the 15 1/2 years I have been here to be considered a peer.

You might want to look up the definition of what a "peer" is.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Also about if anonymous poster on a conspiracy site counts as peer review.

I think I have established my credentials sufficiently in the 15 1/2 years I have been here to be considered a peer.

You might want to look up the definition of what a "peer" is.

TheRedneck

Not sure posts on a conspiracy site qualify you as a peer to review medical literature by most definitions.

If you can provide a source to support that (not your own thread on this site) then happy to review my position.

Well hell I'm in the 6% WOOT!

a reply to: nonspecific

It is my understanding that to be deemed "peer reviewed" the paper must be submitted for review prior to publication and any issues or revisions resolved before the publication is accepted?

That is the editorial review. Often it does edge close to a peer review, in that the editors are often well-versed in their respective fields. But the purpose is not so much to validate the paper as it is to determine the applicability ad desirability for the journal publishing the paper.

Many journals now have editors who allow political bias to interfere with the editorial review. No idea how long that has been going on, but I noticed it in the last 20 years or so. So any paper that does not support the official narrative is automatically excluded, which puts researchers in a difficult position: their careers greatly benefit from published papers, so they have the choice to fudge the data and conclusions to show what it clearly does not show, or they deal with a lower career path. Money talks, and researchers get just as hungry as anyone else.

In addition, that definition of peer review being only editorial review has been pushed as well for some time. Peer review is nothing more than a peer (someone who understands and can follow the scientific principles involved with the research) reviewing and sometimes conducting repeated experiments or additional experiments to verify/advance the study being reviewed.

That is how science advances. Someone runs some experiments or a study and publishes their results. Others around the world then read their results and post their own feelings on the study/experiments. Some of those conduct follow-up studies/experiments and publish their results. And so on and so forth until there is general agreement on the results and no one wishes to review the issue any more. Even then, the data may still be peer-reviewed at any time... Einstein, for example, successfully challenged Newton's Laws of Motion with Relativity many years after Newton's work had been generally accepted. Someday someone may challenge Relativity. But the point is that peer review is not and simply cannot be limited to those in some sort of self-imposed "authority"... that stops the Scientific Method in its tracks and turns it political.

My review was somewhat superficial, admittedly. I can follow the paper easily and looked for any indication of improper procedure or contaminated/biased results. I found none, and I stated so. Therefore, superficially or not, I have peer reviewed the paper. I published my review on an Internet forum called "AboveTopSecret." That means my review itself will stand a much lower chance of itself being peer reviewed than if I had submitted it to a journal, but it is still a peer review. A more thorough review might be setting up a study to verify the results and then publishing them. But both are technically peer reviews.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: igloo
Do you have any idea why many people, worldwide, are angry?

Are there?

Today, some guy in his moms basement can push a post that is then picked up and repeated by 1000 sites word for word and then it become fact since it have been reposted 1000 times. That is very typical today, so are there REALLY many people angry?

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm not disputing your ability to class yourself as a peer but I'm still going to say that in this case you have not followed the standard procedure for what we can call peer review for publication as it is done.

It is my understanding that point of peer review is to allow the editor to pass any papers or articles submitted for review to a number of independent peers who have the relevant expertise in the chosen field to confirm that the paper follows and meets the criteria needed.

I imagine this is as much to protect the integrity of the journal as anything else?

So you may have read the paper as a peer but you have not given it a peer review in the accepted sense.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Not sure posts on a conspiracy site qualify you as a peer to review medical literature by most definitions.

That is your opinion.

If you can provide a source to support that (not your own thread on this site) then happy to review my position.

To support what? That I can follow the study? You really want me to find a website that clearly states something like "TheRedneck on AboveTopsecret.com is capable of understanding and reviewing for accuracy the study titled Dark -Field MicroscopicAnalysis on the Blood of 1,006 Symptomatic Persons After Anti-COVIDmRNA Injections from Pfizer/BioNtech or Moderna authored on August 12, 2022 by Riccardo Benzi Cipelli, MD, DDS, Franco Giovannini, MD, and Gianpaolo Pisano, MD, OHNS and published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research Volume 2, page 385"?

Nope, not gonna happen. Enjoy your opinion. It does not change the fact that I did indeed review the paper.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck


Opinion backed up by links already provided.

By your defition the term peer review becomes meaningless as anyone writing anything about anything becomes peer review.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I'm going to give your comment a review as your peer and deem it in good standing.

a reply to: nonspecific

I'm not disputing your ability to class yourself as a peer but I'm still going to say that in this case you have not followed the standard procedure for what we can call peer review for publication as it is done.

I thank you for that, and I will agree my particular review followed a somewhat unconventional route. I do not expect much from it, to be honest; there are others who are much more capable than I to peer review this particular paper, and I hope they do.

My point is not that my review was some great achievement; it was not. But it was a peer review.

It is my understanding that point of peer review is to allow the editor to pass any papers or articles submitted for review to a number of independent peers who have the relevant expertise in the chosen field to confirm that the paper follows and meets the criteria needed.

Your procedural information is essentially correct, but it is describing an editorial review, not a peer review. The entire purpose of a peer review is to get others with similar capabilities to continue the discovery process and to weed out bad studies/experiments. That ability to peer review is in no way limited to only specific individuals that are hand-picked by journal editorial staff. If that were the case, and peer review was only possible before a paper is published, what is the purpose of publishing it in the first place? No more peer review can occur according to your understanding; it is already published.

In any case, I believe the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research is a legitimate journal.

I imagine this is as much to protect the integrity of the journal as anything else?

Yes, and that is why the editorial review borders on also being a peer review. Any journal wants to maintain a certain amount of respect among researchers; that's how they make their money. Obviously, no journal in their right mind would publish something in keeping with the quality of a bitchute page.

It can actually be difficult to get some subjects published despite good research because of this. Many papers never make it past the first glance from an editor; the editor may think it is too far-fetched or simply misunderstand what the paper is stating. Those that do are reviewed, but it is as much for grammar/omissions/typographical errors as for veracity of data. If there is a question about the veracity of the data, papers can be forwarded to experts in the field for their opinions.

But those opinions are somewhat superficial themselves. No journal is going to pay for a full repeat of the study or analysis just to publish one paper. They pay experts to spend a couple hours reading and considering the data and conclusions to determine if they are suitable for publication in their mind; nothing more. The real peer review happens after publication and is the very purpose of publication.

So you may have read the paper as a peer but you have not given it a peer review in the accepted sense.

Again, I am a peer insomuch that I am familiar with the scientific principles addressed. I am not the best-suited peer for this paper, perhaps, but I am still a peer.

I reviewed the paper and the data/conclusions presented.

I published my review, albeit in a somewhat unconventional forum.

Ergo, a review has been conducted by a peer and published. The paper has been peer reviewed.

(Incidentally, do you believe the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research does not conduct editorial reviews of papers they publish? On what do you base that belief?)

TheRedneck

a reply to: ScepticScot

Opinion backed up by links already provided.

Links to government websites. This is not a political discussion.

By your defition the term peer review becomes meaningless as anyone writing anything about anything becomes peer review.

No.

One must be capable of understanding the scientific principles involved to be a peer. That is what the definition of a peer is:

: one that is of equal standing with another : EQUAL
//The band mates welcomed the new member as a peer.

especially : one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status
// teenagers spending time with their peers

In the case of scientific peer review, the reviewer must be on a level such that they have similar abilities to understand the subjects covered. This article was easily worded; had I had any difficulty understanding the information presented, I would not be considered a peer and my review would thus not be a peer review.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: ScepticScot

I'm going to give your comment a review as your peer and deem it in good standing.

You are both members in good standing with ATS; therefore you would be ScepticScot's peer in that respect and you can peer review his statement.

And that is my peer review of your post, based on me also being a member in good standing with ATS and thus your peer.

If one gets right down to it, that's what ATS is: a forum to peer review opinions of other members.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I don't accept the jpirnal as a legitimate scientific source and find it both biased and badly managed.

Is it usual for a scientific journal to have legal specialists like these guys on the editorial team?

Mary S. Holland, MA, JD, General Counsel for Children's Health Defense 2019-present; formerly Director Graduate Lawyering Program, New York University School of Law 2004-2019; expertise in children's health and litigation concerning vaccines; renowned author of works in that area.

Robert J. Krakow, JD, Law Office of Robert J. Krakow, Representing the Vaccine Injured in All 50 States.