Re: Coronavirus
 

One more thing about the MHRA:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...essofresearch1https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ion-foi-21-624

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Quack.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You poor thing, you must not be able to sleep at night! :rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

What makes you think that? :confused:

---------- Post added at 18:07 ---------- Previous post was at 18:06 ----------

Ditto... :confused:

edit: Did either of you actually click the links to get through to the peer reviewed, medical research papers?....and read them?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I clicked through and scanned enough to recognise the classic conspiracist mindset behind the alarmist bullet points and even worse link text you chose to summarise it with.

Studies which are actually reviews of other studies rather than newly designed and conducted research have serious limitations, amongst them the risks of selectivity and confirmation bias. Sure, you have a veritable rogue’s gallery of all the very worst things that could happen as a result of having a covid vaccination, but you don’t need to trawl the internet for that sort of stuff. Every packet of paracetamol has a leaflet in it with a list of horrible things that can occur if you take it. A list of things that could happen when you take medication does more harm than good when it is divorced from its context, which is what you very effectively did here.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indeed, if I read the [possible] effects of the tablets I take, I should be dead. :erm:

Re: Coronavirus
 

File under "confirmation bias". The capital letters are a give away!

Re: Coronavirus
 

That is a peer reviewed paper and rather then read it and think about what it says you are choosing to simply look at the bullet points that it posted and conclude that the summary in the paper is even worse? Do you know how to read a research paper? Have you been taught to read a research paper? I have. I've even written one. Please look at the paper (and the dozens of others that I posted below it) with an open mind.
Here are links to the wikepedia/linkedin pages of the authors (that you called quacks) so you can look at their credentials(look at their education):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Seneff
https://www.linkedin.com/in/anthony-...alSubdomain=gr

---------- Post added at 22:20 ---------- Previous post was at 22:16 ----------

Christ. It's in upper case....so it must be misinformation?!
Really?....I simply couldn't be bothered to change it to lower case.

Click the link. :dozey:

---------- Post added at 22:30 ---------- Previous post was at 22:20 ----------

No. They are POSSIBLE side effects and they have been on the market for (probably) decades. The mrna cov vaxxines have been on the market for less that 3 years after about 6 months trial.(normal trial for a vax is much longer)
btw...The total side effects for the cov vax's (in the last 2.5 years) are more than all side effects for all vaccines in the last 40 years.
Latest one, iirc, was tested on 6 mice!

---------- Post added at 22:34 ---------- Previous post was at 22:30 ----------

I have no words. I'm posting up to date medical research and you are judging my posts because they have bullet points that you find upsetting and the url link is in capitals? Realy? That's your argument?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I said no such thing, I suggest you stop insulting people [above] and making baseless accusations.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You said: I said: So...I didn't insult you.

edit: What accusations am I making that you are upset about?

btw.....Chris called me a quack....that's an insult. I'm insulted now. Care to comment?

Re: Coronavirus
 

You’re being alarmist and you know it. ‘Peer reviewed’ is not the same as ‘correct’ or ‘consensus’. It means it has been competently produced. Again, you know this.

I have less issue with the limitations of a ‘survey of surveys’, which is what this study is, than I do with the headline you chose to put on it. You’re obviously pursuing an agenda. I don’t need to read the entire research paper to know that.

And yes, I could if I was so motivated. While neither of my degrees are in the sciences, I believe I’m competent to read and evaluate the material adequately well.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, I'll comment.

1. I said people, not me, but you knew that already.
You are perfectly well aware what you said, and to who, since you went back and edited it again after I removed it (we store all edits).
2. Are you blind, or just playing dumb. I quoted it.
3. No, he didnt, I suggest you go back and read it again.

TBH, I think you are just playing the troll now.
I advise you to move on and not to continue picking this fight.

Re: Coronavirus
 

1) How am I being alarmist by posting peer reviewed papers on this subject?
2) You do need to read the entire research paper, and you should know that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

From the first of RamRod's Wikipedia links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough

I think that link tells us all we need to know about the report's credibility! And ironically, it was provided by RamRod himself in an attempt to support his case!