Do you have a single reputable scientific source for ANY of those claims you made?
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.
Do you have a single reputable scientific source for ANY of those claims you made?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 don't seem to get it.
What part of "thrown away all credibility of all medical and pharmacological institutions" don't you get?
That was an after-the-fact observation.
You seem to think that quoting the peer-reviewed literature is dispositive of argument.
But it isn't, because scientific rigor has been replaced by Marxist or Orwellian censorship: everything not from an approved source, or anything even if from a once-approved source, becomes "misinformation" or "disinformation" once it deviates from the party line
There is no such thing as a fact-checker: there are only countless George Winstons, like yourself, anxious to stomp out any trace of crimethink.
Or have you forgotten it was Hillary Clinton who called for a "fact check" in her Presidential campaign debate with Trump?
The problem is that your bombast and rhetoric goes far beyond what the structures of science actually say, or call for. Such as
So, your distrust of "Big Pharma" scientists basically means that you distrust any scientist who does research.
So materials science, analytical chemistry, metallurgy, and physics aren't science.
Dingbat.
Such as
There is, therefore, no reason to take seriously anyone who makes claims that contradict the current knowledge about medical science.
Medicine isn't a science.
Science requires reproducibility under controlled conditions. And when dealing with medicines, you have all kinds of uncontrolled variables. Which you attempt to get around by large sample sizes.
or
You see, when scientists have established that something is harmful to health, there is a strong likelihood that you actually know or know of people who have died from that thing.
You mean like Ansel Keys? Or statins for cardiovascular health?
Dingbat.
Or of course there's always the infallible Lord Fauci:
