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

a reply to: TheRedneck


I can provide numerous links from different sources none of which seem to support your interpretation.

You may consider yourself a peer in the required sense but I many qualified people would agree with that assessment based solely on your posts on this site.

As I said opinions may differ.

a reply to: nonspecific

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

Yes. The issue of copyright comes up a lot, and journals can be sued for publishing plagiarized papers.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ScepticScot

That's fine. You can reject my review all you want. It does not change the fact that it happened.

The point is that you do not understand what peer review is and how it works. That precludes you from being considered a peer in that respect, and your statement becomes meaningless. The paper was peer reviewed.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The legal members of the editorial team claim to specialise in litigation and vaccine injury compensation not copyright law?

You must admit that it looks a bit shifty when it comes to impartiality in the editorial process.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Your opinion is I don't understand it.

This is despite me providing links to support my view and you just asserting you are correct.

Since this seems to be going nowhere, let me put it all in one post. That way, others can either accept how things work or not and we can call this discussion done.

Let's assume I develop a theory as to how the gravitational constant can be altered. I work out the mathematics and conduct some experiments to verify the theoretical conclusions. I write it all down in a paper and submit it to IEEE and the American Journal of Physics. IEEE receives my draft and acknowledges it, but they do not find it credible. They turn it down, cold.

The American Journal of Physics also receives my draft and they consider it potentially publishable. They acknowledge their receipt of the paper and inform me it is being sent to specialists for further review. They may ask me some questions about my methodology. After a few more weeks, I receive the news that their experts have concluded the paper is acceptable for publication.

I am now published in a scientific journal.

Next issue, my paper is presented. At that point it has at the most undergone a superficial review by the experts and an editorial review by the editors.

Now every researcher with access to the American Journal of Physics, all across the globe, can see my work. Most will scroll right past it; a few will read it and think "that's interesting" or "that's a load of hogwash." A few will have interest in my subject and work out the mathematics for themselves. If I am lucky, a few of them will repeat my experiments or develop new experiments to test my hypothesis. If these publish a paper of their own, I am now peer reviewed.

That was the purpose of publication: to allow others to peer review my work. Those reviews may be positive or negative, and they may or may not be in the American Journal of Physics. It is completely acceptable for them to be published anywhere, but publication in a popular journal will help ensure that more read their paper. The more work the reviewer has put into the review, the more weight it will typically have with others. Those reviews will go through the same procedure and themselves are subject to peer review. I can even peer review the reviews to my original work.

Eventually, the debate will die down. Enough experiments will be conducted by different researchers to reach a generally-accepted conclusion as to the veracity of my hypothesis. That conclusion may be either positive or negative.

Then, at any point in time, since my work is published and will remain published as long as the journal is available, the debate may spark up again. Someone else may publish a paper that states that my conclusions are only accurate under certain conditions; they may have found evidence to support my conclusions; they may have found evidence to disprove my conclusions.

If I do not publish my work, that process cannot happen. Somehow it must be published.

Now, if I choose to do so, I can author a book containing my work. That is still publication. The problem with a book is that such books do not generally appeal to the general public (with a few exceptions) and that they will reach a much broader audience. Also, some researchers may discount the book because it is not in a journal as they are used to seeing. So I have lessened my audience among my peers, leading to less chances for peer review, and broadened my audience among a population that may not be interested.

I can choose to make a website and publish my research that way. The problem is that the Internet is so vast I will still lessen the chance considerably that someone else will peer review my work.

I can post my work on an Internet forum. That also lessens the chance even more that someone capable and interested in peer reviewing my work will see it and take it seriously.

In short, it is not required that i publish in any specific location. I choose who to publish through based on how that medium will benefit me as a researcher and what outlets are available to me. Regardless of where I publish, my work is still considered valid; it simply may not get the peer review to be taken seriously. A scientific journal is preferable for several reasons:

• There is a certain amount of respect given to any paper published in a popular scientific journal, simply because it is so difficult to do so.
  
• Scientific journals are kept forever. When I was a member of IEEE, I could search back through papers published as far back as 1884.
  
• Scientific journals are never edited for content once published. There is no chance of a published paper being dropped from publication. By contrast, web sites can disappear, Internet forums can shut down, and books can go out of print.
  
• Scientific journals are geared towards peers, not toward the general public. That means a greater chance that those interested in my work will see it.

Being published in a scientific journal is a feather in the cap of any researcher. It can lead to more consideration for grants and open career paths. However, just being published is nothing compared to having authored a paper that gets a lot of positive peer reviews and becomes a known principle.

There are not many lucrative career paths open to researchers. The most obvious is a professorship with a university, where one may continue to get grants and conduct research. Universities hire more for research purposes than for teaching ability; instead of teachers researching, the typical professor is a researcher who also teaches on the side. A precious few manage to act as independent researchers, but that path is sorta like becoming an NFL first-round draft pick and Heisman Trophy winner... most never make it. There just aren't that many grants available outside of through universities.

Some manage to work in government as advisors or in a science department like NASA. That path is difficult to navigate because politics and science are often at odds; politics is about control, while science is about the search for knowledge.

Many wind up working for industry or research organizations, developing hypotheses into products. That path is pretty unfulfilling for a researcher, though, as they are never involved with cutting-edge work.

All of the good paths are difficult to break into; there are a lot more potential researchers than there is money to pay them. So any advantage one can get, a published paper, authoring a textbook, work on various well-known projects, increases the chance of moving into a more lucrative and satisfying career.

That's how it works, folks. I've been there; I have seen it all in action. Whether anyone wants to believe it or not is totally up to them; I am not going to start banging my head on a brick wall trying to get that brick wall to move.

TheRedneck

a reply to: nonspecific
a reply to: ScepticScot

Look guys, this is what i do. I wrote a detailed post explaining the procedure and how things work above. You can choose to believe it or not; not my problem.

At this point, I am going to consider this side debate on what constitutes a peer review as similar to a debate where someone who has no idea how electricity works starts telling me how to build a guitar amp. I usually just walk away shaking my head sadly before my allergy kicks in and I start sneezing.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: nonspecific
a reply to: ScepticScot

Look guys, this is what i do. I wrote a detailed post explaining the procedure and how things work above. You can choose to believe it or not; not my problem.

At this point, I am going to consider this side debate on what constitutes a peer review as similar to a debate where someone who has no idea how electricity works starts telling me how to build a guitar amp. I usually just walk away shaking my head sadly before my allergy kicks in and I start sneezing.

TheRedneck

I can say the same in relation to the way peer review is understood or let's say misunderstood in this case. It is true from the arguments presented that the members above don't understand what peer review is. But that's fine as you don't expect everyone to understand what it is and how it works. However it should be noted and discussed.

The motivation behind these arguments is denialism of facts and evidence when it comes to vaccines and vaccine safety which is fuelled by a very strange from of vaccine ideology which includes a lot of vaccine apologetics.

There are constant and desperate attempts to downplay the injuries caused by the mRNA vaccines. On the way though there are even more desperate attempts to cast doubt on the quality of the researchers who publish papers that don't support the narrative and even attacks against the editors or the journals themselves.

A classical example is what happened a few days ago when a very famous cardiologist Dr Akeem Malhotra has suggested that the vaccination program should pause at a global level because there are serious questions and concerns regarding vaccine safety. It looks from the conclusions there is a greater risk of serious adverse reactions from the vaccine rather than hospitalised due to Covid.

Here is the paper which had been peer reviewed in the journal of insulin resistance

insulinresistance.org...

The reaction was expectable to be honest. Dr Malhotra was accused of bias, was branded a quack, a conspiracy theorist, and a crackpot, as well as being irresponsible and not a good scientist. Later on the argument expanded to whether Dr Malhotra had a PhD?! and finally the argument was made that the journal is obscure and of very low quality (whatever this means).

Similar arguments when the Department of Health in Florida through Dr Ladapo advised 18-39 year old males not to take the mRNA vaccines. There is an obvious reason for this.

The irony is that these comments and accusations as well as attacks come from individuals who have usually no qualifications of any sort, no experience and no knowledge of science and medicine and/or how science and the peer-reviewed process works but they are mainly fuelled by personal beliefs and political ideology. If it comes from the UK, as I believe to be the case, you are looking on left wing activism/ideology which is blended with vaccine apology and denialism of facts in the name of the 'greater good' which is formed in the minds of those who believe in these ideologies.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: nonspecific
a reply to: ScepticScot

Look guys, this is what i do. I wrote a detailed post explaining the procedure and how things work above. You can choose to believe it or not; not my problem.

At this point, I am going to consider this side debate on what constitutes a peer review as similar to a debate where someone who has no idea how electricity works starts telling me how to build a guitar amp. I usually just walk away shaking my head sadly before my allergy kicks in and I start sneezing.

TheRedneck

I can say the same in relation to the way peer review is understood or let's say misunderstood in this case. It is true from the arguments presented that the members above don't understand what peer review is. But that's fine as you don't expect everyone to understand what it is and how it works. However it should be noted and discussed.

The motivation behind these arguments is denialism of facts and evidence when it comes to vaccines and vaccine safety which is fuelled by a very strange from of vaccine ideology which includes a lot vaccine apologetics.

There are constant and desperate attempts to downplay the injuries caused by the mRNA vaccines. On the way though there are even more desperate attempts to cast doubt on the quality of the researchers who publish papers that don't support the narrative and even attacks against the editors or the journals themselves.

A classical example is what happened a few days ago where a very famous cardiologist Dr Akeem Malhotra has suggested that the vaccination program should pause at a global level because there are serious questions regarding vaccine safety. It looks from the conclusions that there is a greater risk of serious adverse reactions from the vaccine rather than hospitalised due to Covid.

Here is the paper which had been peer reviewed in the journal of insulin resistance

insulinresistance.org...

The reaction was expectable to be honest. Dr Malhotra was accused of bias, was branded a quack, a conspiracy theorist, and a crackpot, as well as being irresponsible and not a good scientist. Later on the argument expanded to whether Dr Malhotra had a PhD?! and finally the argument was made that the journal is obscure and of very low quality (whether this means).

Similar arguments when the Department of Health in Florida through Dr Ladapo advised 18-39 year old males not to take the mRNA vaccines. There is an obvious reason for this.

The irony is that these comments and accusations as well as attacks come from individuals who have usually no qualifications of any sort, no experience and no knowledge of science and medicine and/or how science and the peer-reviewed works but they are mainly fuelled by personal beliefs and political ideology. If it comes from the UK, as I believe to be the case, you are looking on left wing activism/ideology which is blended with vaccine apology and denialism of facts in the name of the 'greater good' which is formed in the minds of those who believe in these ideologies.

More spectacular dishonesty.

Just as a single example the the PHD only came up as you seemed to believe it was a requirement to question the study (in fact the opposite of rednecks argument).

You also seemed to think he must have one based on being a doctor not understanding the difference between a PhD and a medical doctor.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: nonspecific
a reply to: ScepticScot

Look guys, this is what i do. I wrote a detailed post explaining the procedure and how things work above. You can choose to believe it or not; not my problem.

At this point, I am going to consider this side debate on what constitutes a peer review as similar to a debate where someone who has no idea how electricity works starts telling me how to build a guitar amp. I usually just walk away shaking my head sadly before my allergy kicks in and I start sneezing.

TheRedneck

I can say the same in relation to the way peer review is understood or let's say misunderstood in this case. It is true from the arguments presented that the members above don't understand what peer review is. But that's fine as you don't expect everyone to understand what it is and how it works. However it should be noted and discussed.

The motivation behind these arguments is denialism of facts and evidence when it comes to vaccines and vaccine safety which is fuelled by a very strange from of vaccine ideology which includes a lot vaccine apologetics.

There are constant and desperate attempts to downplay the injuries caused by the mRNA vaccines. On the way though there are even more desperate attempts to cast doubt on the quality of the researchers who publish papers that don't support the narrative and even attacks against the editors or the journals themselves.

A classical example is what happened a few days ago where a very famous cardiologist Dr Akeem Malhotra has suggested that the vaccination program should pause at a global level because there are serious questions regarding vaccine safety. It looks from the conclusions that there is a greater risk of serious adverse reactions from the vaccine rather than hospitalised due to Covid.

Here is the paper which had been peer reviewed in the journal of insulin resistance

insulinresistance.org...

The reaction was expectable to be honest. Dr Malhotra was accused of bias, was branded a quack, a conspiracy theorist, and a crackpot, as well as being irresponsible and not a good scientist. Later on the argument expanded to whether Dr Malhotra had a PhD?! and finally the argument was made that the journal is obscure and of very low quality (whether this means).

Similar arguments when the Department of Health in Florida through Dr Ladapo advised 18-39 year old males not to take the mRNA vaccines. There is an obvious reason for this.

The irony is that these comments and accusations as well as attacks come from individuals who have usually no qualifications of any sort, no experience and no knowledge of science and medicine and/or how science and the peer-reviewed works but they are mainly fuelled by personal beliefs and political ideology. If it comes from the UK, as I believe to be the case, you are looking on left wing activism/ideology which is blended with vaccine apology and denialism of facts in the name of the 'greater good' which is formed in the minds of those who believe in these ideologies.

More spectacular dishonesty.

Just as a single example the the PHD only came up as you seemed to believe it was a requirement to question the study (in fact the opposite of rednecks argument).

You also seemed to think he must have one based on being a doctor not understanding the difference between a PhD and a medical doctor.

Clearly not. This is your own misunderstanding as explained to you in many of my posts on another thread. I am not aware of what qualifications Dr Malhotra has.

Your question came as a result of having no arguments to attack Dr Malhotra as you were looking something to hold on. This doesn't make any difference.

Still you are engaged in communications that show how desperate your arguments have become in the absence of any evidence. Calling scientists irresponsive, biased, as well as casting doubt on their quality and the quality of the journals they decide to publish. Others have called them quacks, charlatans, and crackpots.

But we know the motivation comes from some sort of strange vaccine ideology and denialism of facts and reality as they don't fit your political opinions. Just as described to you by Redneck above.

It's fine. We all see your motivation.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

No you asked if I had one and were incredulous when I asked if the author had one, you believed he had one based on him being a cardiologist.

Are you actually denying that it was you who brought up PHDs in that threat?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Not sure where you got that from but it's false/out of date info.

There's 1000s of peer reviewed journals. Impact factors are used as measures of credibility of scientific journals, Beall's list and similar - there's a list of credibile ones here:

Top 100 ranking journals

Fake journals, like this one, are a major problem in research and academia. Anyone working on or writing papers in the last 20 years will have been trained in the warning signs to look out for. Though this one is a lot more obvious than most.

This 'journal' is politics and conspiracy theory masquereding as scientific papers - it's authors do their own peer reviews, has no impact factor, has never been referenced, is a known predatory publisher and is run by known hoaxer, John Oller (has a long line of made up anti-vax claims from MMR jabs cause Autism to Tetanus jabs are to make everyone sterile as part of NWO depopulation agenda.

There's plenty of open access non-predatory publishers for paper authors to submit their work to - submiting a scientific paper to a 'science journal' that cites the Bible as references, claims covid vaccines are mind conrtol by the devil etc... shows the original authors have failed to conduct basic five minutes background reading/research before paying the $300 submission fee which should raise red flags in anyone.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Just as a single example the the PHD only came up as you seemed to believe it was a requirement to question the study (in fact the opposite of rednecks argument).

Obviously you are having comprehension difficulties.

Let me re-quote the applicable part about the PhD:

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

A classical example is what happened a few days ago when a very famous cardiologist Dr Akeem Malhotra has suggested that the vaccination program should pause at a global level because there are serious questions and concerns regarding vaccine safety. It looks from the conclusions there is a greater risk of serious adverse reactions from the vaccine rather than hospitalised due to Covid.

...

The reaction was expectable to be honest. Dr Malhotra was accused of bias, was branded a quack, a conspiracy theorist, and a crackpot, as well as being irresponsible and not a good scientist. Later on the argument expanded to whether Dr Malhotra had a PhD?! and finally the argument was made that the journal is obscure and of very low quality (whatever this means).

Asmodeus3 did not state that a doctor had to have a PhD to peer review anything. He stated that Dr. Malhotra was accused of not having a PhD in the ensuing argument that stemmed from his stated but anti-establishment position, published in a journal paper, concerning the vaccinations.

The point is that a PhD was not even required for him to be considered an expert in the field. As far as that goes, an MD was not required, as long as he had the ability to understand the principles (he did, of course, have an MD). He wasn't even publishing a peer review; this was an original study. My argument was about peer review.

Somehow you twisted that in your head to mean the exact opposite of what was stated. I'd say that renders your "opinions" (read: regurgitated MSM propaganda) pretty much moot.

One aspect of the Scientific Method I failed to mention is demonstrated quite clearly in your response: when someone publishes papers and reviews which are constantly shot down through peer review, their future publishing abilities become quite restricted. No journal wants papers from someone who is consistently wrong (which is why researchers strive to ensure their studies are accurate). Were you in that same position, based on how many obvious errors in simple reading comprehension you have demonstrated in the last few pages, you couldn't get published in a rest room magazine.

Unfortunately, that principle does not apply to Internet forums... another reason researchers prefer scientific journals. You can make as many ignorant statements as you wish and continue posting like nothing ever happened. The good news on that is that those reading your obvious clap-trap soon figure out you have nothing to offer in the way of actual information.

I feel a part of my purpose as a member of this forum is to point out your flaws so others who read your posts understand quickly that your statements are unreliable and often completely wrong. Thankfully, you make that responsibility quite easy to fulfill.

TheRedneck

a reply to: bastion

Not sure where you got that from but it's false/out of date info.

Have you ever actually gone through the process of trying to get a paper published?

I have. It was turned down, but at least I have submitted papers to scientific journals before. I have contributed to multiple papers. Of course, you probably believe IEEE is a "fake journal" as well.

TheRedneck

The article in the OP is from Volume 2 Issue 2 of the Publication.

This is a prior release from the publication regarding material for its production.

"Call for papers Volume 2, Issue 2, COVID Aftermath
2022-04-28
In IJVTPR Volume 2 Issue number 2, we continue the critical examination of ingredients in vaccines, especially focusing on the COVID-19 genetic "therapies" that aim to directly impact the genomes of human biophysical systems. While Yuval Noah Harari and others associated with the "Great Reset" claim they can "hack the human genome" and thus have the power to monitor and, through a system of cryptocurrency, to control the buying and selling of every person on the planet, the level of their "reading" of the billions of base-pairs in the human genome by relying on their current knowledge of the "genetic code" is something like claiming to understand Greek texts based on knowledge of the Greek alphabet. Their superficial understanding of genetics, reflected in the medical/pharmaceutical/government hegemony, is what got us the Epidemic NCDs (noncommunicable chronic diseases/disorders) dealt with in IJVTPR Volume 2 Issue 1. Those exploding disorders and ones related to them are what Childrens Health Defense is all about. For the IJVTPR, see a bit of the backstory in The Defender.

Now, as the COVID-19 experimental genetic engineering continues to expand not merely to tens of millions of people, but to billions --- people being injected with materials designed to produce the spike protein of the weaponized COVID virus (see Fleming 2021), and perhaps to do a great deal more in view of the strange ingredients (see Lee et al., 2022) and "side effects" (Seneff et al., 2022) that are being discovered --- the present call for papers aims to focus on the "COVID Aftermath".

The scope of the former noninfectious chronic diseases/disorders of Volume 2 Issue 1 has been expanded by the "gain of function" engineering that brought about SARS-CoV-2 and its variants. As a result of the fruits of that bioweapons research, the distinction between "infectious" and "noncommunicable" conditions leading to many disorders, diseases, and a 40% upsurge in "All Cause Mortality in the United States During 2021" seems to have been obliterated. Hear Michael Yeadon, PhD in pharmacology, former VP and Chief Scientific Officer at Pfizer Global R&D for 17 years, discuss what he calls "The COVID Lies" that have brought us the COVID health and economic disaster. With all that in mind, the current call is for scientific papers about the theory, practice, and research into known and suspected outcomes of the world-wide COVID genetic engineering experiment still underway, and more particularly, what can be done to avoid, reduce, or perhaps alleviate the looming effects of death and illness as we face up to the "COVID Aftermath".

Now I'm not qualified to make comment on this apparently but as a layman I'd say that the above reads a lot like a conspiracy post that would be more suited to the boards of ATS than a reputable scientific journal.

Or am I expecting too much from the world of scientific journalism in the year 2022?

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: TheRedneck

Not sure where you got that from but it's false/out of date info.

There's 1000s of peer reviewed journals. Impact factors are used as measures of credibility of scientific journals, Beall's list and similar - there's a list of credibile ones here:

Top 100 ranking journals

Fake journals, like this one, are a major problem in research and academia. Anyone working on or writing papers in the last 20 years will have been trained in the warning signs to look out for. Though this one is a lot more obvious than most.

This 'journal' is politics and conspiracy theory masquereding as scientific papers - it's authors do their own peer reviews, has no impact factor, has never been referenced, is a known predatory publisher and is run by known hoaxer, John Oller (has a long line of made up anti-vax claims from MMR jabs cause Autism to Tetanus jabs are to make everyone sterile as part of NWO depopulation agenda.

There's plenty of open access non-predatory publishers for paper authors to submit their work to - submiting a scientific paper to a 'science journal' that cites the Bible as references, claims covid vaccines are mind conrtol by the devil etc... shows the original authors have failed to conduct basic five minutes background reading/research before paying the $300 submission fee which should raise red flags in anyone.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Presuming that your biology or an adjacent field you should be able to tell me what the was done to the samples in the slides that claim to show damaged cells to make them look like that.

I will give you a hint, the membrane are ruptured.

It's real easy if you have a related background.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

No you asked if I had one and were incredulous when I asked if the author had one, you believed he had one based on him being a cardiologist.

Are you actually denying that it was you who brought up PHDs in that threat?

I have already shown you this isn't the case in numerous posts and Redneck has also answered to you in the post above. If you don't get it then I can't do anything about it.

However you could reflect on the arguments you have presented together with other members who in the absence of any evidence and driven by political ideologies and beliefs you all had no issue calling scientists as irresponsible, biased, charlatans, quacks and crackpots, as their research and professional opinion don't fit your vaccine ideology and political ideology. At the same time attacking the journal and brand it as obscure and the editorial team as irrelevant and of low quality.

This is why these arguments are self-defeating having no value or weight.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: TheRedneck

Presuming that your biology or an adjacent field you should be able to tell me what the was done to the samples in the slides that claim to show damaged cells to make them look like that.

I will give you a hint, the membrane are ruptured.

It's real easy if you have a related background.

I am sure the answers lie somewhere in your signature. But you need to start posting your links.

Vaccine apologetics and denialism of facts and evidence are not good guides.

a reply to: nonspecific

Or am I expecting too much from the world of scientific journalism in the year 2022?

You're expecting it to agree with you. That's not how it works. "Truth" is not "agreement with you"; "facts" are not "what you want to believe."

TheRedneck

a reply to: AaarghZombies

If I thought for one nano-second that yours was a sincere request, I would comply. But it's not, I do not, and I'm not wasting my time.

I made my review. This is not "Ask Me Anything."

TheRedneck