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

The major flaw in the argument from those disputing the legitimacy of this paper is that they’re happy to gobble up any and all info from Vaccine manufacturers, despite their clear vested interest. Yet, when any paper comes out which is critical or presents alternative data, they instantly dismiss and discredit without any real scientific understanding. It seems maintaining a narrative is more important than the truth.

Redneck has been more than generous with his informative and thoughtful description of the process. At this point he’s making you all look like disingenuous, stubborn, spoiled little children.

If any of you can refute the data then do so, all I see are deflections and attempts to discredit the authors. Seems because they use unflattering language toward vaccine manufacturers, somehow that renders the information contained obsolete. Not everyone is happy to suck on the tits of big pharma and government, they need taking down a peg or two imo.

Keep up the charade with the spiteful posts, personally I’d be happy to see the bam hammer fall on a couple of members. See how they feel when censorship is on the other foot.

The tide is turning and you’ll all drown in the words you’ve thrown around here the past few years.

Go after the ball not the player.

ENOUGH!!!

Discussing other members is not what ATS is about....so knock it off and discuss the topic.



Trolling, And What To Do About It




You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.
This could include temporary POSTING BANS!!


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: nonspecific

Scientific research is not interested in what is already known. Scientific research is concerned with learning that which is not yet known. One cannot, by definition, have irrefutable proof of that which is not yet known.

How little you understand the world of research!

TheRedneck

a reply to: ScepticScot

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

Then perhaps you should have specified the context of your post... perhaps with a link? I did notice you keep demanding such from him but have produced none yourself.

This entire thread you have seemingly been completely unable to grasp what I actually wrote out. Now you expect me to know what you are thinking without you writing it out?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Grenade

Redneck has been more than generous with his informative and thoughtful description of the process.

I thank you for that.

There are many times when i offer my insights into fields I am familiar with where I wonder, did I do any good at all? Did anyone even bother to read the whole thing? Am I just wasting my breath? I wish you could know how good it feels to me when someone takes the time to write out such a post.

My intent is to inform, not to argue. Any fool can argue; it takes a bit more to inform.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

So let me get this straight as I'm cinfused now.

THe paper says this,

""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""

This is clearly saying that SARS-CoV-2 was the result of gain of function engineering.

If this has not been established and there is no evidence in the paper to show that this is the case then how can a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal make such a claim?

I get that the author(s) may think that this is the case but this is opinion or speculation not scientific fact.

What am I missing here?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

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

Then perhaps you should have specified the context of your post... perhaps with a link? I did notice you keep demanding such from him but have produced none yourself.

This entire thread you have seemingly been completely unable to grasp what I actually wrote out. Now you expect me to know what you are thinking without you writing it out?

TheRedneck

My reply was to that poster. It was your choice to interject your mistaken opinion.

The claims made were by the other poster. it's his responsibility to provide the link.

Strangely he hasn't, probably as it would show how dishonest he had been.

a reply to: nonspecific

If this has not been established and there is no evidence in the paper to show that this is the case then how can a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal make such a claim?

I get that the author(s) may think that this is the case but this is opinion or speculation not scientific fact.

What am I missing here?

What you are missing is that the paper is not the final word on what it says. No paper ever is. That's one of the points I have been trying to get across, and the entire reason peer review works the way it does.

When Einstein published his first papers on Relativity (to continue to (ab)use my favorite example), it was unproven. A great many scientists at the time thought it was a bunch of poppy-cock. How could constants like time, mass, or length change with perspective? It made no sense.

Now, years later, we know that it does make sense. Relativity has been proven to be true. That all came about because of peer review: others from across the globe devised experiments to test Relativity, and every single one was a peer review. Had proof of Relativity been a requirement of publication, the chances are very good that we wouldn't understand it today (not that most completely understand it anyway; some days I wonder if I do, lol). We wouldn't have GPS to get us lost on trips; the satellites that drive the GPS network cannot function properly unless Relativistic effects are considered.

The authors who made that statement are attempting to prove their case. They are presenting their evidence. Peer review, if allowed to function as it was intended, will eventually either prove or disprove their assertion. On the other hand, the information presented by Big Pharma is not peer-reviewed; it is a statement of what they claim to be true and is not subject to any global attempt to prove or disprove it. That's the difference between a corporate press release and a scientific paper.

Is any of this getting through?

TheRedneck

a reply to: ScepticScot

My reply was to that poster. It was your choice to interject your mistaken opinion.

And it was made on a public board; that by definition invites others to participate. There is no restriction on ATS as to who can comment on a post (Staff warnings excepted).

Thre claims made were by the other poster. it's his responsibility to provide the link.

Actually, you both made claims. Yours was that he had made a statement contradictory to what i had said, which I knew was false in the context of this thread. You also failed to provide any context to your statement, apparently making the assumption that anyone who read it would also have knowledge of another discussion which you did not only not reference, but you completely failed to even indicate.

I went back and looked to be sure. I saw no reference in your statement to any other thread or any other discussion.

If there is a lesson i would want you to take away from this, it is this: spend some time on the wording of your statements and claims, and when you do make a mistake, own it. I have been corrected many, many times on this forum, and every single time I have acknowledged the correction and continued on a little wiser than before. There is no shame in being wrong occasionally; we all do it. The shame is in refusing to admit it when that happens.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

My reply was to that poster. It was your choice to interject your mistaken opinion.

And it was made on a public board; that by definition invites others to participate. There is no restriction on ATS as to who can comment on a post (Staff warnings excepted).

Thre claims made were by the other poster. it's his responsibility to provide the link.

Actually, you both made claims. Yours was that he had made a statement contradictory to what i had said, which I knew was false in the context of this thread. You also failed to provide any context to your statement, apparently making the assumption that anyone who read it would also have knowledge of another discussion which you did not only not reference, but you completely failed to even indicate.

I went back and looked to be sure. I saw no reference in your statement to any other thread or any other discussion.

If there is a lesson i would want you to take away from this, it is this: spend some time on the wording of your statements and claims, and when you do make a mistake, own it. I have been corrected many, many times on this forum, and every single time I have acknowledged the correction and continued on a little wiser than before. There is no shame in being wrong occasionally; we all do it. The shame is in refusing to admit it when that happens.

TheRedneck

You have the right to reply to any post, not the obligation. If you didn't understand then ask rather than rush in with your usual insults.

Perhaps you might benefit from a little introspection about your own posting behaviour before trying to lecture others

a reply to: ScepticScot

Perhaps you might benefit from a little introspection about your own posting behaviour before trying to lecture others

I believe that is true for everyone. Of course, some reject any attempt to advise them of their own errors.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: nonspecific

If this has not been established and there is no evidence in the paper to show that this is the case then how can a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal make such a claim?

I get that the author(s) may think that this is the case but this is opinion or speculation not scientific fact.

What am I missing here?

What you are missing is that the paper is not the final word on what it says. No paper ever is. That's one of the points I have been trying to get across, and the entire reason peer review works the way it does.

When Einstein published his first papers on Relativity (to continue to (ab)use my favorite example), it was unproven. A great many scientists at the time thought it was a bunch of poppy-cock. How could constants like time, mass, or length change with perspective? It made no sense.

Now, years later, we know that it does make sense. Relativity has been proven to be true. That all came about because of peer review: others from across the globe devised experiments to test Relativity, and every single one was a peer review. Had proof of Relativity been a requirement of publication, the chances are very good that we wouldn't understand it today (not that most completely understand it anyway; some days I wonder if I do, lol). We wouldn't have GPS to get us lost on trips; the satellites that drive the GPS network cannot function properly unless Relativistic effects are considered.

The authors who made that statement are attempting to prove their case. They are presenting their evidence. Peer review, if allowed to function as it was intended, will eventually either prove or disprove their assertion. On the other hand, the information presented by Big Pharma is not peer-reviewed; it is a statement of what they claim to be true and is not subject to any global attempt to prove or disprove it. That's the difference between a corporate press release and a scientific paper.

Is any of this getting through?

TheRedneck

What you are saying is very true.

The authors of the paper are attempting to show that the statements made based on the evidence they have are true. If the process continues as normal then they will know in time whether their claims and statements are true.

In contrast we are expected to accept whatever derives from the pharmaceutical industry as gospel without asking for evidence, proof, and replication of the results. It's more like society has invented a new type of Theology that we all have to subscribe to.

Anyone with a healthy degree of skepticism will now reject (and has every right to do so) whatever comes from that side even if it's true. It's called lack of reliability and credibility, which the pharma and their associates don't seem to have.

a reply to: TheRedneck

My man. We disagree sometimes but you are spot on. And these are doctors using their expertise in one field and trying to transalate that to another.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I hardly ever hand out stars yet you've earned quite a few over the years. This time you get a pat on the back too.

a reply to: nonspecific

Although hypnotised by the machine that is science, I think you like to play devils advocate because in truth you see a lot of sense in what we say. In fact, you don't annoy me that much.

Just remember science is nothing more than descriptions of reality, sometimes you need to use your own two eyes.

This was in my bookmarks.

Science is nothing but perception

"
"Science is nothing but perception"
When we realize that the cosmos are an ornate arena of mystery is when we realize the most elegant of ideas. When theoretical physics and philosophy crash once more, similar to the ancient times of the Greeks and Romans, incredibly radical ideas are surfacing. With a confusing beach full of knowledge unknown to the majority of humanity, as Newton said, “diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay undiscovered before me.” Every once in a while something surfaces and the great physicists and philosophers swim out and interpret and analyze and speculate until it has been released into the atmosphere so much that the public has suffocated with the enlightenment and now obvious condition of the somewhat recently discovered object. As we reach deeper into these ideas, which there are so many of, we are starting to realize something. Perception is but our viewpoint of the vast ocean. The ornate arena. Science is really just your perception of everything that has ever happened, is happening, and will happen. Take the long lasting philosophical problem entitled Qualia. It deals with the idea of whether colours are colours, or assigned aspects of objects perceived differently by every brain. If someone sees something as red, and everybody refers to the same object with the same dye, and same “color” as red, then relative to other objects, the subject is very much “red”. But relative to other people’s perception, it could be darker, or lighter or blue. String theory is another example. Being that it is realistically just an idea of philosophy, it can be perceived incredibly different from person to person from universe to universe. The connections made by each person is another fascinating aspect of the human mind. As more and more is discovered, more is connected and eventually we have what we think is an established view of reality. Reality is nothing but our perception. Whether red, or blue."

That's me been nice two posts in a row.

As a long time lurker on this forum, but first time poster, allow me if you will to revisit the original idea behind this thread, a study done on abnormalities in the blood after getting a clotshot. Here are a few examples of researchers finding some pretty alarming abnormalities:

Medical Doctors on the Maria Zee (great Aussie freedom fighter and researcher) show:

www.bitchute.com...

Some researchers have linked 5G and self assembling graphene circuitry in the blood of vxxed, Stew Peters show so make up your own mind:

www.bitchute.com...

La Quinta Columna in Spain were one of the first, if not the first to break the graphene story:

www.bitchute.com...

Dr Carry Madej on Stew Peters, again make up your own mind:

www.bitchute.com...

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

I called this earlier in the thread:

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: AaarghZombies

The people peer reviewing it are either fake or are known anti vaxxers.

Here's a thorough debunk link

"Come on man!" Your link goes to a discussion forum. By your own measure, it's worthless as a source. Their whole purpose for being is to debate topics they know little to nothing about. They aren't experts at anything. They certainly aren't known or recognized experts.

Metabunk.org is dedicated to the art and pastime of honest, polite, scientific investigating of unusual claims. It is primarily a discussion forum, however the focus is on providing concise useful resources, and attempting to avoid repetitive debate and arguments.

I'm not saying the information in their thread is wrong, but by the measure you provided, they aren't to be taken seriously because they don't agree with what I want to believe.

They do the same thing with anecdotes.

If you've got an anecdote of someone who got the vaccine and got sick from it, or got the vaccine and still died from Covid:

"That's just anecdotal, that doesn't mean anything! Don't you know anything about sample size? You're anti-science! Scientific method, double-blind, I-Heart-Big-Pharma blah blah blah!!!"

Literally the next day they'll come at you with an anecdotal story of someone they know who didn't get vaccinated and died of Covid. And they know they're being hypocrites, they just think it's okay since they're on the right "side."

You can't have a serious discussion with these kinds of people.

They're nothing if not predictable.