Which one is it Joe? Is the virus killing causing the rising death rate or is it the vaccine?
COVID Booster Shots
- Thread starter HawkeyeShawn
- Start date
Um....DUH
I've clearly demonstrated for you that it's the virus.
That's what the death certificates state.
So the vaccines are ineffective at best and cause negative efficacy at worst. Thanks for playing.
No; people are just listening to trolls and frauds like you post here and skipping the vaccines, thinking ivermectin and HCQ and "pee" will save them. And then they die of Covid because they listened to the disinformation that you re-post here.
How many of those were because of the spike proteins being shed by the vaccinated?
Sure, but NOT when vaccinations were widely available.
We KNOW that deaths rates in the unvaccinated are 6x-10x higher than vaccinated. That's where your life insurance claims are coming from.
So, again: vaccinated + prior infection beats unvaccinated & prior infection.
Vaccinated Wins: Every Time.
Covid wasn't "a thing" 3 years ago.
And 3x vaccine doses have been holding up very very well against severe disease and death.
At what cost Joe? How will getting boosted every 4 months effect the human body?
About $17 per vaccine dose, or $50 a person.
Meanwhile, Covid hospitalization can run you anywhere from a few grand to >$100,000 if you end up in an ICU.
The problem is I don't think you're playing dumb Joe. I think you genuinely didn't understand the question I posed.
The CDC is hiding data showing vaccines don’t work
That’s not from me. It’s from the conspiracy theorists at - checks notes - The New York Times. And - checks notes - the Centers for Disease Cont…
alexberenson.substack.com
Just to be clear l’m 100% correct and you were and still are wrong.
Keep trying.
Please tell me your phd isn’t from iowa.
Dr. Ryan Cole: Covid vaccines cause CATASTROPHIC damage to organs
Pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole shared the dangers of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines at the White Coat Summit in July 2021. During the conference organized by America's Frontline Doctors in Texas, he revealed that the vaccines cause catastrophic damage to human organs. Cole elaborated o
Ryan Cole = Another QuackDr. Ryan Cole: Covid vaccines cause CATASTROPHIC damage to organs
Pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole shared the dangers of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines at the White Coat Summit in July 2021. During the conference organized by America's Frontline Doctors in Texas, he revealed that the vaccines cause catastrophic damage to human organs. Cole elaborated owww.naturalnews.com
You're like a Quack Magnet, bro.
No
You've already had someone post specifics on the quacks you're enamored with here.
Instead of learning from that experience, you continue to post more of them.
I don't rely on gatekeepers to determine who is worth paying attention to Joe. It's why you live in an echo chamber and I live in an echo chamber and I do not.
Peer reviewed material isn't "gatekeepers". Unless you dislike fully vetted science that's presented by actual experts.
First
However, it should be noted that the public is largely unaware of how the process works, and what it does and doesn’t mean. Even highly-educated non-scientists can assume, wrongly, that “peer review” means that the results of a paper have somehow been checked, or replicated, before it has been accepted for publication.
next
Speaking at the Royal Society in London in April, Richard Smith, a former editor of the BMJ, who edited the journal for more than a decade, made the case that pre-publication review was too slow, expensive, and burdensome to reviewers, and “lacking in evidence that it actually works in its chief goal of spotting errors.”
He cited an experiment conducted during his time at the BMJ, in which a short paper containing eight deliberate errors was sent to 300 reviewers, as evidence of how badly the system can fail to detect errors.
“No one found more than five, the median was two, and 20 percent didn’t spot any,” he was quoted as saying by Times Higher Education. “If peer review was a drug it would never get on the market because we have lots of evidence of its adverse effects and don’t have evidence of its benefit.”
Ouch
Also in April Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet, Britain’s other top medical journal, wrote an editorial pointing out that “much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue” and drew attention to “an obsession among scientists for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance.”
Oh Snap
He went on to say, “The apparent endemicity of bad research behavior is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt their data to fit their preferred theory of the world.”
Now I get it
Although Richard Smith called for slaying the “sacred cow” of peer review and for doing away with pre-publication review, medical publication is a huge industry and there are powerful entrenched interests that resist change.
No shit
One important change would be for the medical community (including journal editors and funding agencies) to place greater value on the careful replication of what appears to be an important new finding, and to value methodological rigor in research over the reporting of sensational results, which stand a good chance of being wrong or inflated.
Already there
It is equally important for the public to become more aware of the need for skepticism in response to the latest dramatic finding from a research study.
www.forbes.com
However, it should be noted that the public is largely unaware of how the process works, and what it does and doesn’t mean. Even highly-educated non-scientists can assume, wrongly, that “peer review” means that the results of a paper have somehow been checked, or replicated, before it has been accepted for publication.
next
Speaking at the Royal Society in London in April, Richard Smith, a former editor of the BMJ, who edited the journal for more than a decade, made the case that pre-publication review was too slow, expensive, and burdensome to reviewers, and “lacking in evidence that it actually works in its chief goal of spotting errors.”
He cited an experiment conducted during his time at the BMJ, in which a short paper containing eight deliberate errors was sent to 300 reviewers, as evidence of how badly the system can fail to detect errors.
“No one found more than five, the median was two, and 20 percent didn’t spot any,” he was quoted as saying by Times Higher Education. “If peer review was a drug it would never get on the market because we have lots of evidence of its adverse effects and don’t have evidence of its benefit.”
Ouch
Also in April Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet, Britain’s other top medical journal, wrote an editorial pointing out that “much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue” and drew attention to “an obsession among scientists for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance.”
Oh Snap
He went on to say, “The apparent endemicity of bad research behavior is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt their data to fit their preferred theory of the world.”
Now I get it
Although Richard Smith called for slaying the “sacred cow” of peer review and for doing away with pre-publication review, medical publication is a huge industry and there are powerful entrenched interests that resist change.
No shit
One important change would be for the medical community (including journal editors and funding agencies) to place greater value on the careful replication of what appears to be an important new finding, and to value methodological rigor in research over the reporting of sensational results, which stand a good chance of being wrong or inflated.
Already there
It is equally important for the public to become more aware of the need for skepticism in response to the latest dramatic finding from a research study.
The Crisis Of Peer Review
If peer review were a drug, it would never get on the market.
www.forbes.com
Science is broken Joe, and it's because of people like you.
www.vox.com
Science has been in a "replication crisis" for a decade. Have we learned anything?
Bad papers are still published. But some other things might be getting better.
www.vox.com
Science is broken Joe, and it's because of people like you.
Science has been in a "replication crisis" for a decade. Have we learned anything?
Bad papers are still published. But some other things might be getting better.
It is still FAR better than the quackery you are posting here.
Another poster called out one of your quacks, and illustrated for you how crazy his alternative claims are.
Instead of acknowledging that he is a "less than reputable" source, you simply moved on to the next quack.
Science is broken Joe, and it's because of people like you.
Science has been in a "replication crisis" for a decade. Have we learned anything?
Bad papers are still published. But some other things might be getting better.
Are there "bad papers"?
Sure
This is a far different claim from what you are making, insinuating that ALL science is junk.
Of course there are papers that get through peer review that have to be retracted. Furthermore, not all retractions are due to intentional malfeasance. Some are simple missteps in the course of analyzing the data. However, as you're aware, those numbers are miniscule in comparison to the legitimate, reliable research that's published in peer reviewed journals.
It should be apart by now that I don't give much credence to who you consider to be reputable. You live in an echo chamber of self congratulatory nonsense.
Link Scotland's actual data and release, and I can.
But while the data is accurate, it has been taken out of context.
PHS told Reuters that the data actually shows that vaccinated individuals are far less likely to die from COVID-19 infection than unvaccinated individuals, once you take into account the underlying population sizes and differences in the age structure of individuals who are vaccinated compared to unvaccinated.
“A higher overall number of COVID-19 related deaths among people who are vaccinated compared to those who are unvaccinated can be seen in current weekly reporting due to the fact that over 90% of individuals in Scotland are fully vaccinated against COVID-19”, it said in an email. “For those aged 50 and over, this is at almost 100%.”
Fact Check-Graph comparing Scottish COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths by vaccination status lacks key information
A chart circulating on social media takes a snapshot of COVID-19 statistics in Scotland, broken down by vaccination status. The chart shows a higher total number of deaths and hospitalisations in the vaccinated group, seemingly casting doubt over the value of a vaccine,...
www.reuters.com
So, your "linked graphic" wasn't a graphic created by the PHS in Scotland, it was some internet jockey who took their data completely out of context and cited them, irresponsibly.
PHS is clearly stating that the opposite of what that graph claims is actually occurring.
What "study"?
PHS in Scotland says your graph is full of shit, because EVERYONE over 50 yrs old is fully vaccinated.
The "20% deaths" you see in your graphic are all YOUNG people who were NOT vaccinated. And you cannot compare those demographics the way you are trying to here.
Board Member of Large German Health Insurance Company Sounds the Alarm: Side Effects of COVID Vaccines Much Higher Than Official Reports
By Jim HoftPublished February 23, 2022 at 2:49pm
A board member of a large German health insurance company comes forward: The side effects of COVID vaccines are much higher than reported by official agencies.
BKK Board Member Andreas Schöfbeck said in a report by WELT, “According to our calculations, we consider 400,000 visits to the doctor by our policyholders because of vaccination complications to be realistic to this day. Extrapolated to the total population, this value would be three million.”
BKK numbers suggest the total number of side effects reported in Germany are likely in the millions in 2021.
This is a huge development!
Board Member of Large German Health Insurance Company Sounds the Alarm: Side Effects of COVID Vaccines Much Higher Than Official Reports
A board member of a large German health insurance company comes forward: The side effects of COVID vaccines are much higher than reported by official agencies. BKK Board Member Andreas Schöfbeck said in a report by WELT, “According to our calculations, we consider 400,000 visits to the doctor by...
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Board Member of Large German Health Insurance Company Sounds the Alarm: Side Effects of COVID Vaccines Much Higher Than Official Reports
By Jim Hoft
Published February 23, 2022 at 2:49pm
A board member of a large German health insurance company comes forward: The side effects of COVID vaccines are much higher than reported by official agencies.
BKK Board Member Andreas Schöfbeck said in a report by WELT, “According to our calculations, we consider 400,000 visits to the doctor by our policyholders because of vaccination complications to be realistic to this day. Extrapolated to the total population, this value would be three million.”
BKK numbers suggest the total number of side effects reported in Germany are likely in the millions in 2021.
This is a huge development!
Board Member of Large German Health Insurance Company Sounds the Alarm: Side Effects of COVID Vaccines Much Higher Than Official Reports
A board member of a large German health insurance company comes forward: The side effects of COVID vaccines are much higher than reported by official agencies. BKK Board Member Andreas Schöfbeck said in a report by WELT, “According to our calculations, we consider 400,000 visits to the doctor by...
"Board Members" are not "scientists"
Gateway Pundit is not a news source.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Missouri State Transfer WR Raylen Sharpe Visiting Iowa on Tuesday- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
