Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Do you have peer-reviewed documentation which quantifies the benefits and is comparable to Mark Skidmore's data?
-
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!
Suppression of Free Speech on Covid
- Thread starter Kenny
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I think that he has me on ignore so he won't see this, but his source once again looks to be rather shady. It is somewhat right. The paper is no longer temporarily blocked. It has not been fully retracted:
WITHDRAWN: A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products - PMC
This article has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and/or editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at ...
COVID-19 vaccine-myocarditis paper to be permanently removed: Elsevier
A paper claiming that cases of myocarditis spiked after teenagers began receiving COVID-19 vaccines that earned a “temporary removal” earlier this month will be permanently removed, according to a …
retractionwatch.com
"
Abstract
This article has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and/or editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at Article withdrawal.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
My personal conclusion is that I don't call anything that has to be repeated at least once a year a "vaccine."
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Including the flu vaccines that my wife & I get every year?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why not? Vaccines have a "shelf life". For example even the small pox vaccine was recommended to be repeated eons ago if one was going into areas of active breakouts. There are countless different viruses out there. Flu vaccines need to be taken yearly because the flu virus mutates rather easily. The covid virus mutates too. They are both highly contagious, but we have been exposed to the flu for so long that immunity is built in to a degree in all of us. Those that were to susceptible died out. The same would happen with covid given time. And of course just as the flu kills mainly the elderly so does covid.
Another vaccine that you need repeated is a tetanus shot. It lasts about ten years.
The CDC lists tetanus, the flu, and now covid as diseases that need boosters, the frequency of the boosters depends upon the virus. There are other vaccines that may be needed to be boosted depending upon one's job or what countries that one goes to:
I see what you mean, we could call it something else for the sake of discussion. But does that make you any less likely to get it? The Flu Shot is a good comparison since it is on a similar cadence.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I also posted all of this:
"Misleading: While SV40 is known to cause cancer in certain animals like hamsters, epidemiological studies didn’t find an elevated risk of cancer in people who received SV40-contaminated polio vaccine.
Inadequate support: Neither the preprint by McKernan et al. nor the other studies cited in the article provided evidence for the claim that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines contained significant DNA contamination or that the vaccines can alter DNA in people. The analysis underpinning this claim was performed on vials of unknown origin ...
In the preprint, the authors claimed that they detected DNA in the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and in particular a particular gene sequence originating from the simian virus 40 (SV40)[1]. The gene sequence is known as a promoter, which can enhance expression of a gene that is located after the promoter. The U.S. National Human Genome Research Institute explains more about the role of promoters in this article. It is this finding that forms the basis for the article’s claim that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could modify DNA and increase cancer risk.
However, one of the most significant limitations is that the vials tested were of “unknown provenance” and the authors explained that the vials had been sent to them “anonymously in the mail without cold packs” but that the vials were “unopened”. Simply put, whether the vials were actually of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the integrity of the contents is questionable. The Epoch Times article simply glossed over this fact, discussing the preprint findings as conclusive evidence of DNA contamination when this is far from certain.
Michael Imperiale, a professor at the University of Michigan who studies DNA tumor viruses, told Health Feedback in an email that the results are far from establishing that DNA contamination of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is widespread. “Since this article has not been peer reviewed, we don’t know if there was truly significant DNA contamination,” he explained ...
...It’s important to note that the upper limit of 815 ng DNA/mL RNA came from a lot that had been treated with the incorrect DNase stock, as the footnote on the report clearly showed, resulting in more residual DNA left in the vaccine. This fact however, is glossed over by The Epoch Times.
Were we to exclude that value, the highest value would be 211 ng DNA/mL RNA, which is within the “commercial acceptance criterion” of the European Medicines Agency (≤330 ng DNA/mg RNA) stated in the report.
Furthermore, vaccine vials with significant residual DNA levels exceeding that criterion wouldn’t be used for vaccination in the first place. This would also be the case in the U.S., Imperiale pointed out.
Others also pointed out that since quantifying residual DNA levels is based on a measurement relative to RNA levels, vials that weren’t stored properly are likely to experience significant RNA degradation. In contrast, DNA would be more stable and less likely to degrade. This could produce spurious results as DNA levels could thus be much higher than RNA levels by the time the analysis was conducted."
Which explains how and why the study you cited has some methodological errors and doesn't say what you claim it does.
Then I said this is why we don't rely on news articles from the Epoch Times and we don't hang our hats on a single non-peer-reviewed, preprint study.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You haven't. And you've repeatedly ignored the post in which I explained how and why your claim is inaccurate.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
All of a sudden you value peer review?
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
You're deflecting. The point in contention was my comment on the article that was referenced by Florida's Surgeon General.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
The survey clearly showed that the COVID vaccines have killed 3.5 times as many people as COVID. This is a disaster.
I’ve had expert statisticians and epidemiologists review the survey, the methodology, and the results. None could find any errors.
I’m willing to put a million dollars on the table that this is right and that the vaccines have killed more people than COVID. Any takers? If not, why not?
kirschsubstack.com
I’ve had expert statisticians and epidemiologists review the survey, the methodology, and the results. None could find any errors.
I’m willing to put a million dollars on the table that this is right and that the vaccines have killed more people than COVID. Any takers? If not, why not?
"Vaccine" killed 3.5X more Americans than COVID did
The data is clear and consistent. I challenge any qualified scientist to challenge this data in an open public debate.
kirschsubstack.com
No, it didn't. This was a survey of lay people's opinions about who died or was otherwise harmed from a vaccine and who died or was harmed by the virus. Why would we consider that evidence of what actually occurred? I've read tons of these opinion on Sorryantivaxxer.com and the opinions of the unvaccinated are consistently wrong. For example, when their loved ones died unvaccinated of Covid, they blamed it on the hospitals, not the virus. And they consistently preferred horse dewormer to remdesivir. Their opinions are of no value regarding what actually occurred in their lives.
I reviewed it myself. The following doesn't support your claim above:
"An online survey of COVID-19 health experiences was conducted to collect information regarding reasons for and against COVID-19 inoculations, including experiences with COVID-19 illness and COVID-19 inoculations by survey respondents and their social circles ... Thirty-four percent (959 of 2,840) reported that they knew at least one person who experienced a significant health problem due to the COVID-19 illness. Similarly, 22% (612 of 2,840) indicated that they knew at least one person who experienced a health problem following COVID-19 vaccination. With these survey data, the total number of fatalities due to COVID-19 inoculation may be as high as 289,789 (95% CI: 229,319 – 344,319)."
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Maybe dangerous misinformation shouldn't be protected by the 1st Amendment?
Wasn't the Russian Collusion Coup, where fake news and Democrats Party Leaders divided the country, in a stampede of hate, similar to yelling fire in a theatre? It was never warranted in the end but harmed many people. Should the propagandists have been jailed, or was free speech being protected, even for liars? The country was not anywhere near this divided until fake news yelled Russian fire, nonstop for several years. Does censorship only apply to the Right and the Left gets to have full free speech? It appears to look that way.
When it came to COVID, only Republican states allowed free speech about COVID, allowing citizen to see and choose the options of the collective brain storm. The Democrat run states censored and became repressive, with leaders enjoying a dual standard they created for themselves. They treated their own state citizens, like they usually treat the Republicans. This exercise of free speech, versus not,,was a good litmus test to see where censorship comes from, and whether it was warranted, or more of a power play.
In the end, the censorship did not help with COVID, since both sets of states had similar COVID results, but with Republican states enjoying more freedom and prosperity the entire time. This kept the US economy from collapse due to Democrat drag on the economy.The Democrats states would also hurt millions of young people; students, due to Democrats misinformation about children being as vulnerable as adults, to COVID. They did not censor that lie. Biased lies can do harm and did do harm; fire!
The Republican Party had more adults in the room and could handle free speech. While the Democrats seem to have more children in the room with emotional problems, at least among the leadership. Free speech scares the Left, less their scams become harder to pull off. COVID showed the breakdown, and how one side likes to censor others, but will also willingly cause harm to others by not censoring their own known misinformation. The children should be able to sue the DNC for yelling fire.
What about the Democrats and Swamp censorship of Republicans during the 2020 election. The Swamp led FBI forced censorship onto all of social media platforms, that only targeted the Right, but not the Left. When Twitter was bought, the extent of the censorship bias and Big Brother involvement was very alarming. Why wasn't that unconstitutional behavior called election inference, since it had the affect of making it harder for one side to get their message out? That election should have been voided, and a new election required, but with the Democrat censorship cheat scam removed. If we had punished those who yelled fire, we may have skipped this inflation and lousy economy.
That censorship behavior by the Left, was the yelling of fire, that caused the Republicans to stampede, which on Jan 6, caused injuries. The Left then used misinformation to blame the stampede, that they caused, by yelling censorship fire, only on the right side of the theater. Justice needs to correct this outcome.
Last edited:
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Nope. I'm pointing directly to the valid criticisms of the non-peer-reviewed, preprint article that you posted as the gospel truth, that you've ignored no less than four times. This is the fifth time.
Enough with the games already.
Dreamer!
BTW, your avatar shows a style of tree
that I liked to draw in elementary school.
The high leaves & bare lower branches
are so elegant.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Apparently.
Cool I think they're beautiful too.
! I once went to one of those "Cocktails and Canvas" parties where a bunch of people go to a class with an instructor and try to paint something nice. We did one just like in my photo but with an outline of a person on a swing hanging from the tree. It's terrible, but I've got it hanging on my bedroom wall.
I recall our teacher showing us how to draw a tree.Apparently.
Cool I think they're beautiful too.
! I once went to one of those "Cocktails and Canvas" parties where a bunch of people go to a class with an instructor and try to paint something nice. We did one just like in my photo but with an outline of a person on a swing hanging from the tree. It's terrible, but I've got it hanging on my bedroom wall.
It was sort of a round ball with a trunk underneath.
Might've been a limb.
I had none of that. Mine had many limbs with rather
horizontal tufts of leaves here & there, getting denser
toward the top.
Yes, I'm a tree hugger. And I don't ask permission.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
That's pretty much what mine looks like, only uglier.
You don't get consent first!?
Well....that don't object.You don't get consent first!?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
So, when Trump asked that Hillary's emails be displayed publicly by a Russian link and was done that same evening, that doesn't count? And why can't Trump ever criticize Putin?
Total falsehood, so why do you perpetrate such nonsense?
Categorically false as anyone can find out in just a few minutes by googling the data.
Again, nonsense. Did anyone tell you that such media is privately owned thus any decision by a company is of their doing? Ever hear of something called the "Constitution"?
Get off the Fox and Newsmax teats and become more like an intelligent adult, OK?