• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are you vaccinated?

Vaccinated?

  • Yes

    Votes: 37 72.5%

  • No

    Votes: 14 27.5%
  • Total voters
    51
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Jolly said:
Amazing well in 10 year time when someone has actually done some safety testing and it's been peer reviewed then retested for validation- people like yourself will actually have some evidence that these vaccines are in anyway safe for use in humans. Until that day you have no evidence to go on.

Of the studies information that have been released- Pfizer wanted to hide their data for 75 years but a court refused to allow that- the data dumps that have come out are shocking 80% of the women that were(Followed) vaccinated while pregnant lost their babies.

Their were more deaths in the vaccine group compared to the placebo group.

They used at efficacy statistics based on relative risk reduction to get their 95% effective statement- actual risk reduction was arround 1%.

On top of that a whistle blower stated that they had changed the data hide data and not followed up as they should have.

They also unblinded the study earily and then offered the placebo group the vaccine- which destroyed the control group.

It's not surprising Pfizer wanted this all hidden for 75 years.

Also the case as we have no safety data no one can give informed consent, as we still are not aware of the actual ingredients of the vaccines no one can give informed consent.

They thrown the Nuremberg code out the window and violated a few other human rights and bioethics laws with this vaccine mandate and mass roll out.

Not that someone like yourself in anyway appears to care about such things.
Click to expand...
The vaccines have been safety tested. The results have been peer reviewed. You don't even know what a peer reviewed article is. All you have is an almost Alex Jones level of conspiracy theories.
 
J

Jolly

Member
metis said:
Where is it peer reviewed?

And here is what I found out about Russell Blaylock [note segments below in italics and underlined:

Allegations of health dangers[edit]
Blaylock claims the supposed toxicity of numerous substances that according to scientific studies are safe at customary exposure levels. He has been quoted several times in media outlets regarding his position that MSG is toxic to the brain.[10][11][12] He also states that the widely used artificial sweetener aspartame is toxic[13][14] and may be the cause of multiple sclerosis.[15] He has additionally cautioned against heavy use of the artificial sweetener Splenda (sucralose).[16] These positions are not supported by scientific consensus or regulatory bodies, as extensive studies support the safety of aspartame, sucralose, and MSG.[2][3][17]

Views on politics[edit]
Blaylock has called the American medical system 'collectivist' and has suggested that health-care reform efforts under President Obama were masterminded by extragovernmental groups that wish to impose euthanasia.[18] He blamed the purported collectivism of American medicine for the retirement of his friend Miguel Faria. According to Blaylock, the former Soviet Union tried to spread collectivism by covertly introducing illegal drugs and various sexually transmitted diseases into the United States.[18] Schwarcz characterized these positions as "conspiracy theories."[18] -- Russell Blaylock - Wikipedia

"Peer reviewed", my rump.
Click to expand...

Not supported by Scientific "consensus" or regulators. Says everything anyone needs to know really.
 
J

Jolly

Member
metis said:
I do know where the problem really lies.
Click to expand...

I am starting to doubt that.

Serious Adverse Events of Special Interest Following mRNA Vaccination in Randomized Trials by Joseph Fraiman, Juan Erviti, Mark Jones, Sander Greenland, Patrick Whelan, Robert M. Kaplan, Peter Doshi :: SSRN
"The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials"
Enjoy this is pre print.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Jolly said:
Evidence for your claim that the vaccines have been saftey tested.



You speak about honest you are not really demonstrating much.
Click to expand...
You can't be rude and demand evidence. Show some good faith. Apologize for your false remark and I will gladly provide evidence.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Jolly said:
I am starting to doubt that.

Serious Adverse Events of Special Interest Following mRNA Vaccination in Randomized Trials by Joseph Fraiman, Juan Erviti, Mark Jones, Sander Greenland, Patrick Whelan, Robert M. Kaplan, Peter Doshi :: SSRN
"The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials"
Enjoy this is pre print.
Click to expand...
" This is a preprint article, it offers immediate access but has not been peer reviewed."
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Jolly said:
No it means you understand nothing about how science works or when consensus is used- and what scientists having to rely on consensus signifies.
Click to expand...
Nope, now you are projecting.

You do not even understand peer review. You are in no position to tell others what they do or do not understand.
 
J

Jolly

Member
Subduction Zone said:
You can't be rude and demand evidence. Show some good faith. Apologize for your false remark and I will gladly provide evidence.
Click to expand...

You have a lot of success with these troll tactics?

Claims are not made true simply by stating them, and repetition of the same makes little difference either.

If you are simply intend on continuing to ignore the actual discussion and rest on accusations, and insult- there is little point in having a discussion at all.

As they say if you have to resort to insults you have lost the argument. I see nothing honest about your mode of discussion and it appears to me little more then an intention to close debate. You might believe you have succeeded but I'm confident anyone reading this thread will see who is holding which postion and acting honestly in the discussion.

You offer no actual evidence or conter points - you simply claim conspiracy, lies and then insult. Ergo you have nothing to add here. And as I said most reasonable people will see that.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Jolly said:
I am starting to doubt that.

Serious Adverse Events of Special Interest Following mRNA Vaccination in Randomized Trials by Joseph Fraiman, Juan Erviti, Mark Jones, Sander Greenland, Patrick Whelan, Robert M. Kaplan, Peter Doshi :: SSRN
"The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials"
Enjoy this is pre print.
Click to expand...
You have already established that you will post anything that fits your opinion, and then you did not tell the truth when you claimed it was peer-reviewed. Also, you misrepresented what peer-review was for when you said it was for consensus. That's not what it's for-- it's for other scientists to check the evidence and comment on it one way or the other.

You simply do not understand how we work.
 
J

Jolly

Member
metis said:
You have already established that you will post anything that fits your opinion, and then you did not tell the truth when you claimed it was peer-reviewed.
Click to expand...

The article I shared is peer reviewed. You can keep claiming it isnt all you like- reality is it is.
Ergo you claim to repect peer review until the study goes against your postion.


metis said:
Also, you misrepresented what peer-review was for when you said it was for consensus.
Click to expand...

Which I never said- you wanna just make stuff up- many consider that lying

metis said:
That's not what it's for-- it's for other scientists to check the evidence and comment on it one way or the other.
Click to expand...


No peer review cannot check the "evidence" repeat experiment does that. It can only check the methodology.


metis said:
You simply do not understand how we work.
Click to expand...

Scientist? Yeah I do- you find the evidence to support your funding. :)

Cant wait for the book 'confessions of a scientific hitman' but know it's never gonna be written because empathy and love for mankind is irrational emotion.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Jolly said:
The article I shared is peer reviewed. You can keep claiming it isnt all you like- reality is it is.
Click to expand...
As I showed you on a link, it was and is not peer-reviewed, so you are just another person here that posts nonsense and expects us to believe it.

Bye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top