Almost 10% of blood sampled in blood bank contaminated with MRNA from vaccines.

a reply to: quintessentone

You trust science that you clearly don’t understand.

Good luck with that.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: quintessentone

You trust science that you clearly don’t understand.

Good luck with that.

Don't need luck just evidence-based repeatable peer-reviewed science. But thanks anyway.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: quintessentone

You trust science that you clearly don’t understand.

Good luck with that.

Don't need luck just evidence-based repeatable peer-reviewed science. But thanks anyway.

Thats admitting ignorance. You need knowledge to understand science. Trusting authorities to tell you what studies are correct is appeal to authority fallacy.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: quintessentone

You trust science that you clearly don’t understand.

Good luck with that.

Don't need luck just evidence-based repeatable peer-reviewed science. But thanks anyway.

Thats admitting ignorance. You need knowledge to understand science. Trusting authorities to tell you what studies are correct is appeal to authority fallacy.

No, you need experts in their respective fields, so, yes, I will trust those experts who do the research and their colleagues who peer review their work and agree with the conclusions as reality. Ignorance is using non-experts opinion pieces with a narrative to push that match your own.

BTW everyone, if the OPs study has more Hepatitis C patients or all are Hep. C patients then these people are not allowed to donate blood at all, so this all becomes a nothing burger.

a reply to: quintessentone

Time will tell.

I 100% will not suffer any adverse reaction or long term effects from a vaccine and Covid didn’t kill me. Happy with my choice.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: quintessentone

Time will tell.

I 100% will not suffer any adverse reaction or long term effects from a vaccine and Covid didn’t kill me. Happy with my choice.

Nobody who wasn't vaxxt is rushing out to get it, and a lot is in the works with lawsuits. A Florida county is going to ban after a court case with Karen Kingston.

Most of the people making desperate arguments are only trying to convince themselves. Self preservation is a strong instinct.

a reply to: quintessentone

Feel free to post the sources which informed your opinion and I’ll be happy to critique.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: quintessentone

Feel free to post the sources which informed your opinion and I’ll be happy to critique.

I don't need anyone's critiquing but my own.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: quintessentone

You trust science that you clearly don’t understand.

Good luck with that.

Don't need luck just evidence-based repeatable peer-reviewed science. But thanks anyway.

And yet you post a link to stem cell treatment from China from ....wait for it...March of 2020
right at the begining of the plandemic.
The study in that link was from a huge database of covid patients allegedly treated with stem cells
I mean yuuuugggeee
not 100
not 1000
not even 10,000
The exact number of patients cited in that study was ( checks notes) 7 patients...wait what?
That wasn't a misprint.
Chinese scientists published a paper with only 7 test subjects.
But it get's better
They used classifications not used by either the WHO, the CDC, or Academia in general.
On top of that they never listed what kind of stem cells were used in that study.
How is a peer supposed to review a study when it's missing data, and the classification of the patients is completely unknown to anyone but the authors of the study?
Do you ( or China) even know what peer freakin reviewed means?
Unbelievable
But the best peer review actually comes from the Chinese themselves
Despite having this wonder treatment as early as March of 2020, millions died from Covid in China, and continue to die from this virus.
Hard to believe when you take into account that the Chinese scientists claimed a 100% success rate.
But it's true.
Here's the link to the article he posted earlier, just to save yourself the scrolling time. ..
spectrum.ieee.org...
I do have a question...are you now, or have you ever been a member of the CCP?
Wait, strike that. Dishonesty when used to achieve an honorable goal, is not considered dishonorable in China.

a reply to: quintessentone

Sure thing, I’m all for individual choices.

It would be prudent however to at least consider perspectives outside your totalitarian analysis which is based entirely on trusting an industry profiting from the disease.

originally posted by: Arizona2

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: quintessentone

You trust science that you clearly don’t understand.

Good luck with that.

Don't need luck just evidence-based repeatable peer-reviewed science. But thanks anyway.

And yet you post a link to stem cell treatment from China from ....wait for it...March of 2020
right at the begining of the plandemic.
The study in that link was from a huge database of covid patients allegedly treated with stem cells
I mean yuuuugggeee
not 100
not 1000
not even 10,000
The exact number of patients cited in that study was ( checks notes) 7 patients...wait what?
That wasn't a misprint.
Chinese scientists published a paper with only 7 test subjects.
But it get's better
They used classifications not used by either the WHO, the CDC, or Academia in general.
On top of that they never listed what kind of stem cells were used in that study.
How is a peer supposed to review a study when it's missing data, and the classification of the patients is completely unknown to anyone but the authors of the study?
Do you ( or China) even know what peer freakin reviewed means?
Unbelievable
But the best peer review actually comes from the Chinese themselves
Despite having this wonder treatment as early as March of 2020, millions died from Covid in China, and continue to die from this virus.
Hard to believe when you take into account that the Chinese scientists claimed a 100% success rate.
But it's true.
Here's the link to the article he posted earlier, just to save yourself the scrolling time. ..
spectrum.ieee.org...
I do have a question...are you now, or have you ever been a member of the CCP?
Wait, strike that. Dishonesty when used to achieve an honorable goal, is not considered dishonorable in China.

You completely missed the point of that post, so it's just embarrassing for you at this point.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: quintessentone

Sure thing, I’m all for individual choices.

It would be prudent however to at least consider perspectives outside your totalitarian analysis which is based entirely on trusting an industry profiting from the disease.

Sure thing you just proved that you are not for individual choices or you wouldn't have shown your true position with that last sentence.

a reply to: Arizona2

Didn’t Robert Maxwell have a hand in the dilution and monopolisation of the scientific field to only allow well funded institutions the ability to publish? I mean it’s not like his credentials can be questioned.

a reply to: quintessentone

By suggesting people consider alternative views before formulating an informed opinion? Consideration of multiple opinions is the basis for critical thinking. Making such a suggestion to a zealot is clearly a futile endeavour.

Think before you post.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

No that is not true. I am fully secure in my own sense of well being. As a 6x recipient I know for a fact the doomsaying and facebook-posts are nonsense.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Merely advocating for the facts to be given to people making their choice. Those facts don't include blogs or social media, but as Quintessentone said, evidence based peer reviewed medicine and science. I don't have to be an expert in that field to know that anyone who is an expert can at anytime reproduce the same results and draw the same conclusions from the same data.

Whatever the rightful distrust of the government, the government doesn't rule over these medical and scientific organizations. It seems like it is more likely that quite a bit of the anti-vaccine stuff is an extension of the Q-anon crap and has been co-opted to those ends. Not to say they aren't some genuine concerns and points being made out there, of course there are. But the vast majority is unsubstantiated scare tactics designed to justify their own position of not taking the vaccine.

--opinion only--
Since we are speculating on motives and motivations, It is my belief that quite a few rail against it not because there is evidence of widespread harm, but because they probably resent their own inability to stand up for their beliefs and refuse mandates when their employers demanded it. So they are looking for reasons to claim they are unsafe, claim damages and some I assume even think there is a pay day at the end of that road.
--opinion only--

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Arizona2

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: quintessentone

You trust science that you clearly don’t understand.

Good luck with that.

Don't need luck just evidence-based repeatable peer-reviewed science. But thanks anyway.

And yet you post a link to stem cell treatment from China from ....wait for it...March of 2020
right at the begining of the plandemic.
The study in that link was from a huge database of covid patients allegedly treated with stem cells
I mean yuuuugggeee
not 100
not 1000
not even 10,000
The exact number of patients cited in that study was ( checks notes) 7 patients...wait what?
That wasn't a misprint.
Chinese scientists published a paper with only 7 test subjects.
But it get's better
They used classifications not used by either the WHO, the CDC, or Academia in general.
On top of that they never listed what kind of stem cells were used in that study.
How is a peer supposed to review a study when it's missing data, and the classification of the patients is completely unknown to anyone but the authors of the study?
Do you ( or China) even know what peer freakin reviewed means?
Unbelievable
But the best peer review actually comes from the Chinese themselves
Despite having this wonder treatment as early as March of 2020, millions died from Covid in China, and continue to die from this virus.
Hard to believe when you take into account that the Chinese scientists claimed a 100% success rate.
But it's true.
Here's the link to the article he posted earlier, just to save yourself the scrolling time. ..
spectrum.ieee.org...
I do have a question...are you now, or have you ever been a member of the CCP?
Wait, strike that. Dishonesty when used to achieve an honorable goal, is not considered dishonorable in China.

You completely missed the point of that post, so it's just embarrassing for you at this point.

Point of the post?
are these not your words?
The only words you used in that post?

Reality is hard to swallow sometimes.

Check this out. China using stem cell therapy to cure Covid-19 and Australia & the U.S. are very interested.

Is English not your first language?
Do you have trouble understanding what these words actually mean?

a reply to: Grenade

Consider alternative views sounds like a way of saying "put opinion on the same level as established fact" and that isn't right

You can believe whatever you like, but that doesn't make it true. Just because someone can type up a good story and put it on their blog or come up with a few plausible points of concern doesn't mean it is true or accurate

a reply to: Grenade
I believe you may be on to something there.

a reply to: MaxxAction
Just ten percent?