What's In Your Jab?
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (17)
sorted by:
https://off-guardian.org/2021/03/30/covid-vaccine-nonsense/
Oooh, an abstract with big, scary words. But very short on facts. How did they "confirm" Covid-19? What was in the placebo? Was it inert? Why are they testing using a cohort that doesn't get Covid, anyway (according to their own official narrative)?
I got my BS degree (pun intended) in Chemistry. You're going to have to do a lot better than that.
That all you got? Come back to me after YOU learn how to do research.Your appeal to authority logical fallacy doesn't work on people who are educated.
Here, I'll get you started. First, prove that the tiny bits of genetic material that are called "viruses" actually cause disease. Do that and you'll win the Nobel. Because no scientist in 115 years of virology has ever been able to do that.
Not the other person here. I did notice they just posted an article without making claims so I'm not sure where they stand.
From the discussion section:
I hardly need to opine here. That speaks volumes for itself. There's no way to clear the barriers for FDA authorization because it will be impossible to do the research correctly.
It was started well after the virus was widespread, but we have no data on whether candidates previously had the virus. It's looking less likely that we will ever get a study that includes that data because of the running clock and the push for vaccination.
This is frustrating because only viral contraction is in view. The thought is that mRNA vaccines can prevent viral infection, therefore vaccinate everyone as soon as possible via EUA. We have to vaccinate people to "save lives" so long term studies are going to be watered down to the point that they don't tell us anything useful.
This isn't real science.
Please calm down.
Exactly. Try to get that info from Pharma. Peter Doshi has a few articles out there, saying pharma isn't giving out the data for independent researchers to see and examine. This is one article:
https://dryburgh.com/peter-doshi-is-corona-virus-vaccine-safe-bmj/
Mark Twain: “Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable.” "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Relative risk and absolute risk are 2 entirely different things: Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33652582/
Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.
High risk people are the last people who should be getting an experimental biological agent/gene therapy with zero long term safety data in human and deadly track record in animal studies due to pathogenic priming.
https://insight.jci.org/articles/view/123158 (Anti–spike IgG causes severe acute lung injury by skewing macrophage responses during acute SARS-CoV infection, pathogenic priming)
Unless they do non-political autopsies, we won't know what's going on in the lungs in the deceased with signs of lung injury. There are issues with the 2 types of macrophages. I can't speak well about that, but there is one other poster (or more) here who has done research (hoping they see and answer; I don't want to reveal names).
No one should ever be injected with toxic waste. Especially if they're already sick.