Posted on 01/04/2023 6:13:23 AM PST by Red Badger
By the NFL???
Absolutely nothing.
In the last couple of weeks, I heard Dr Halhotra quote the Dr. Gundry information.
Who am I going to listen to? Reuters or Dr. Malhotra and Dr. Gundry?
Dr. Malhotra has said recently there are NO cardiologists in Britain who will get any more clot shots. PHARMA is going to loose this battle. Anybody foolish enough to get more boosters of this dangerous, LONG TERM UNTESTED dangerous gene therapy is going to loose too. The more shots you get, the sooner your time will be up.
politicianslie wrote: “Who am I going to listen to? Reuters or Dr. Malhotra and Dr. Gundry?”
You don’t have to rely upon Reuters. You can listen to the American Heart Association, Dr. Luigi Adamo, the director for cardiac immunology in the Johns Hopkins University Division of Cardiology, Dr. Harrington, the test co-developer as documented in the links provided?
What's your opinion on the data?
Oh. I see, you don't pay much attention to the data.
We all sorta figured as much, but good on you for being open about it.
We have data from an observation that PROVES these vaccines cause cardiac harm and yet some have worked really hard to ignore the info in post #157.
The psychopaths in PHARMA have really stepped in this time and they have a growing army of doctors and citizens who are ready to bring the PHARMA machine down.
It's obvious the vaccine scams need to be shutdown and the forces behind it need to be prosecuted. People are dying, and millions more are at risk due to the criminality we are watching unfold.
CLAIM: mRNA COVID-19 vaccines might do more harm than good
VERDICT
SOURCE: Aseem Malhotra, Journal of Insulin Resistance, 26 Sep. 2022
DETAILS
Inadequate support: Malhotra’s claim that COVID-19 vaccines might do more harm than good is based on anecdotal evidence and low-quality studies—some of them disputed—that are insufficient to support his claim.
Cherry-picking: The article cited mainly studies suggesting a negative effect of COVID-19 vaccines, but didn’t acknowledge the wider body of evidence showing that the vaccines are safe and effective.
I said I don’t pay much attention to CFR because I don’t consider it very reliable data.
Do you have a point? I can’t tell if you’re afraid to plainly state your view or just being coy.
Is that higher than the background rate in a similar unvaccinated population?
Here's more to chew on:
Bon Appétit...
I don't agree or disagree with it, I just don't think it's very reliable.
Do you have an opinion on case reporting or CFR?
I'd love to see Dr. McCullough's paper and its citations. Do you have a link?
Wall Street Journal reports:
- One of Hamlin’s teammates, cornerback Kaiir Elam added that Hamlin is awake.
- “Per the physicians caring for Damar Hamlin at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Damar has shown remarkable improvement over the past 24 hours,” the team said in a statement posted on Twitter. “While still critically ill, he has demonstrated that he appears to be neurologically intact. His lungs continue to heal and he is making steady progress.”
- The news that Hamlin was awake was greeted enthusiastically by some doctors, as was the possibility that he could be considered “neurologically intact,” which typically means “normal.”
GREAT NEWS!
PRAISE THE LORD!..................
Never mind on the McCullough paper - I found out about it.
The liars based the previous number of deaths on the Lausanne study. The problem is, as the authors of the study say in the paper, that study only looked at, and therefore only counted, a small subset of all deaths of athletes under 35 - those that had been written up in medical journals.
The lying grifters, McCullough and Polykretis, don't disclose that and instead represent it as an overall average number of annual deaths.
They then compare that to a list of deaths compiled from the internet by contributers to goodsciencing.com.
This list includes deaths of people of any age - some in their 70s (versus <35 in the Lausanne study), people who had only the most peripheral connection with sports, such as sports announcers (versus competetive young athletes in the Lausanne study), and people who died from any cause, including cancer, brain aneurysms, Strep infections and unknown causes.
The dishonesty is so egregious it's clear McCullogh and Polykretis have no respect for their readers nor for the scientific method.
How does it make you feel to have these grifters assume you'll buy absolutely any lie just because it supports a narrative?
Does it give you pause to know they're knowingly so venal, or will you continue to follow them and post their lies?
Good work on the McCullough paper!
I first saw it that morning and didn’t have time or bandwidth to do the due diligence.
Today mom came home for home hospice care. I’m a little distracted...
Sorry to hear that. Be well.
Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.