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

originally posted by: nonspecific
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.

You are expecting too much when you have called Dr Malhotra a quack, charlatan, and crackpot the journal he published his review as of low quality i.e the journal of insulin resistance.

Being a layman of course by your own admission.

a reply to: TheRedneck

THat is not the case.

I am saying that I would not expect a professional scientific journal to make claims that cannot as yet be backed up by any reliable evidence.

"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"

Has this been confirmed or do we now have proof beyond reasonable doubt? If so I am unaware of that.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

To clarify.

The article I quoted is something I would expect someone such as yourself to say on ATS.

It is not something I would expect from professionals and academics.

I shall alter my expectations of the scientific world.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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

He was referencing another thread (quite clearly) in which despite his claims, he brought up the PHD as a requirement.

The lack of reading comprehension was entirely yours which makes the rest of you post, with your usual childish attempts to bully and be insulting, particularly embarrassing for you.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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.

You can resolve this easily by linking to the thread you were claiming this as happened in.

Let's see who brought up PHDs

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

To clarify.

The article I quoted is something I would expect someone such as yourself to say on ATS.

It is not something I would expect from professionals and academics.

I shall alter my expectations of the scientific world.

I think you are denying reality and it seems that reality and facts have a serious adverse reaction to those who invest in political ideologies and try to argue science and medicine in terms of politics and beliefs.

The above realization is also a strawman. You don't know the credentials of each one of us who take part in these threads. For example Redneck as well as other members seem to have very good credentials and knowledge.

And you don't seem to care about the credentials and knowledge of others, after calling well respected scientists as quacks, charlatans, and crackpots, as your narrative isn't served in this case. This is why yourself and others have lost these arguments long time ago.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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.

You can resolve this easily by linking to the thread you were claiming this as happened in.

Let's see who brought up PHDs

A PhD was brought up as a way to establish someone credentials. But there is no need to have a PhD to review a paper. You can have an MD in medicine and sometimes not even that.

However someone with no knowledge and no understanding of science of medicine cannot review anything or comment on most matters.

In the professional world an editor will call a few scientists who will comment on the quality and suitability of the paper. In the vast majority of cases such in Physics, Maths, Chemistry, Biology, etc all of those will have at least a PhD and probably a post doc and years of experience. So the paper can be accepted in the journal.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Still no link.

You brought up PHD as an attempt to delegitimise criticism of the article and failed to understand that the author didn't have a PHD either.

originally posted by: 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

Yes, here's a link to it: ObGyn: Self-hypnosis for intrapartum pain management in pregnant nulliparous women: a randomised controlled trial of clinical effectiveness

I used to do a lot of grant writing and data-anaysis for Jeremiah Horrock's Institute which is the main data processing centre for NASA and ESA telescopes.

I went on to work with Prof Colquhoun at UCL Pharmacology Dept working on developing an automated tool to combat the impact agenda and various other corrupting forces in science/academia and teaching medical students how to do correct stats and how to detect bad papers lying with numbers tricks commonly used in trials: www.dcscience.net...

I'm not trying to claim I'm some super genius; just someone who spent years working for Unis up until Nov 2012 and know a fake journal when I see one.

Appologies if any of my post came as a criticism of yourself as that's not my intention, you know far more than I ever will about electrics and are clearly a very smart guy but journals like this that make a mockery of science to promote clear agendas and mislead the public are a major personal bug bear and my annoyance is aimed at them not yourself as like yourself I know how much blood, sweat and tears needs to be put in to produce proper science.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Still no link.

You brought up PHD as an attempt to delegitimise criticism of the article and failed to understand that the author didn't have a PHD either.

Not at all. We have discussed this before. You can criticise the paper and the research but you need to have knowledge to do so. By your won admission you have no knowledge or experience that's why you started the personal attacks against Dr Malhotra together with other users, calling him irresponsible, biased, quack, charlatan, crackpot. That's very different from criticising his paper.

I wasn't aware what qualifications Dr Malhotra has. and didn't say that he had a PhD.

Your criticisms are personal attacks mainly and I have refuted all of them.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You misunderstand yet again.

I have a great deal of time for the redneck, his manner is exemplary most of the time and he has shown a lot of knowledge and wisdom in the times I have seen and conversed with him on ATS.

I question your academic abilities however as you seem to lack some very basic skills and knowledge that you would expect to see in someone with such a background.

You also struggle to converse without resorting to childish remarks and insults.

I don't think you have any academic background of substance given my interaction with you.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Still no link.

You brought up PHD as an attempt to delegitimise criticism of the article and failed to understand that the author didn't have a PHD either.

Not at all. We have discussed this before. You can criticise the paper and the research but you need to have knowledge to do so. By your won admission you have no knowledge or experience that's why you started the personal attacks against Dr Malhotra together with other users, calling him irresponsible, biased, quack, charlatan, crackpot. That's very different from criticising his paper.

I wasn't aware what qualifications Dr Malhotra has. and didn't say that he had a PhD.

Your criticisms are personal attacks mainly and I have refuted all of them.

Yet still no link.

Why would that be?

a reply to: ScepticScot

What link are you wanting.

I'll find it for you, I'm a dab hand with a keyboard and an internet connection and as luck would have it I have both right here.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You misunderstand yet again.

I have a great deal of time for the redneck, his manner is exemplary most of the time and he has shown a lot of knowledge and wisdom in the times I have seen and conversed with him on ATS.

I question your academic abilities however as you seem to lack some very basic skills and knowledge that you would expect to see in someone with such a background.

You also struggle to converse without resorting to childish remarks and insults.

I don't think you have any academic background of substance given my interaction with you.

Of course you will question whatever doesn't fit your narrative and beliefs.

I mean you didn't seem to have any issue calling Dr Malhotra a quack, a charlatan, and a crackpot. Let alone questioning others online who you know nothing about them.

In your mind everyone lacks skills and knowledge including well established scientists and those who review them.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I questioned Dr Malhorta because his paper was questionable.

I question you because I think you purport to be something that you are not.

There is a difference.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: ScepticScot

What link are you wanting.

I'll find it for you, I'm a dab hand with a keyboard and an internet connection and as luck would have it I have both right here.

As Redneck said above and a few replies back trying to argue about electricity and I will add, quantum physics, with those who don't have the slightest idea of either, it's more of a waste of time.

We all know that you are motivate by vaccine ideology and politics and you that you deny the reality and facts. Actually facts and reality has an adverse effect on your beliefs and dogma.

That's why you have lost every argument.
Good day.

Truly desperate attempts to hold on to some ideology that has no merits.

Vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You've done that thing again haven't you.

The one where when you have nothing sensible left to say you claim that you have won the argument.

I'm sure we have talked about how it makes you look weak and foolish at least twice before now.