ROFL!
You are already discredited because there never was a grave risk to everyone, which was the rationale for the hurried testing, short cuts, and attempted mandates struck down by the Courts.
And because the clot shots don’t work as advertised. (”100% effective” quickly degenerated to the point that the powers that be
be, had to change the very definition of a vaccine, to keep the fraud from sticking out like a sore thumb.)
And, because the clot shots have a vast number of (should have been anticipated by the trials, but oops, the trials were cut to miniscule size and duration, and then lied about) side effects; then should have been caught by VAERS (not meant to be proof, but a smoke alarm), but that was ignored; then all kinds of man-in-the-street effects which you do your feeble best to ignore and dismiss.
I don’t have to refute anything with what you call evidence. It’s like Iiowahawk said:
1. Identify a respected institution.
2. kill it.
3. gut it.
4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.
You have thrown away all credibility of all medical and pharmacological institutions because you have ignored Feynman’s dictum, “You are the easiest person to fool.”
Let us know what Dr. Malone writes back to you.
Be sure to include both your text and his response, with all potentially personally identifying information reacted, of course.
I have consistently been linking to references in the scientific/medical literature, as well as references to other sources, such as the FDA's pages concerning the vaccine approvals.
You have yet to link to a single scientific source.
Where is your evidence that safety issues during clinical trials were ignored? Given my experience with working with the FDA, the idea that a safety issue would be ignored is completely ludicrous.
We had a prototype drug. We wanted to push the prototype into human clinical trials. But before the FDA will allow that, we have to demonstrate drug safety in different animal species. So we gave the drug to rabbits. One died. The FDA would not allow us to continue any research on that drug until we could demonstrate that the reason the rabbit died would not affect humans. That one rabbit put our research schedule back about six months.
And you expect me to believe that the FDA is going to overlook safety issues in humans when they showed that much concern over a rabbit? Sheesh.
Anyway, once again, the onus of providing references from within the validated scientific/medical literature that describe actual studies showing safety issues with the vaccines is on you.
I'll give you a little advice on how to proceed with your effort to show that the FDA-approved vaccines are inherently dangerous and more risky than Covid:
1-Find studies that analyze the incidence of serious adverse effects following vaccination.
2-Find studies that analyze the incidence of those same adverse effects resulting from Covid disease.
3-Compare the studies. If there are fewer blood clots, for example, among vaccine recipients than among Covid patients, then the vaccine is a safer option than catching Covid. On the other hand, if there are more blood clots among vaccine recipients than among Covid patients, it is safer to risk catching Covid. (In the latter case, the FDA would not have approved the vaccine or would have pulled its approval.)
The primary source of medical and scientific literature, the one that scientists all over the world use, is called PubMed.gov. This is a database of medical scientific journals published all over the world. Authors of the journal articles come from every country and a variety of public and private scientific organizations. Most of the citations in the PubMed database are linked to the journal, and many articles are open access (i.e. free). It is searchable. You can search for any medical research topic or any author. You can even search for Robert Malone and see from his publication history that his career as a charlatan began quite recently.
Oh--about this--
I don’t have to refute anything with what you call evidence. It’s like Iiowahawk said:
1. Identify a respected institution. (...)
Is this, then, an admission that you are personally trying to discredit the entire medical science profession?
Good luck with that.
You'll never succeed without evidence.