| In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled MSU Professor Mark Skidmore was exonerated by MSU; his landmark paper showing over 250,000 killed by the COVID vaccine is now back in the peer-reviewed literature, exDemMom wrote: |
| This paper has not, in fact, been reinstated in the peer-reviewed medical literature. It has been picked up by a fake journal that exists to give antivax/antiscience articles a similar appearance to real articles published in bona fide medical/scientific publications. The "exoneration" of the author was that he was investigated for ethical violations related to human subject research. He argued that he used anonymous surveys and did not personally see any of the survey respondents and was able to convince the university that he did not violate ethical standards of human subject research. The university did not validate his paper or the questionable findings therein. As for the highly surprising claim that he found "Estimated fatalities are 289,789 (95% CI: 229,319 – 344,319)", this is based on utterly NO medical or death certificate data. He asked people whether they knew someone who was injured or died from Covid or someone who was injured or died from the vaccine. The responses to these questions were not validated with any objective data. During the pandemic, people are likely to say that any death that they know of is caused by Covid or vaccine because that is what is on their minds. But this is not equivalent to independent objective analysis of cause of death. He took the number of deaths that survey respondents reported as vaccine related and extrapolated them to the entire population. This is not scientifically valid methodology. The only way to determine cause of death is through medical record review, laboratory testing, and autopsy if indicated or the family requests. The numbers of Covid deaths that were verified through laboratory testing, medical records, and/or autopsy were 350,831 in 2020, 416,893 in 2021, and 244,986 in 2022. The big drop between 2021 and 2022 is because of the vaccine. Skidmore's article remains in retracted status. The LA times article linked in the OP explains this. Death statistics for 2020-2022: Mortality in the United States, 2020. Mortality in the United States, 2021. Provisional Mortality Data — United States, 2022. For all three years, Covid is the third leading cause of death. Vaccines, on the other hand, cause so few deaths that it is difficult to find even one validated report of a vaccine death. Yet antivax rhetoric creators would have us believe that vaccines are so deadly that we should be witnessing people dropping dead constantly now. As of May, 2023, a total of 676,728,782 doses of vaccine had been administered to 81.4% of the US population (just slightly over 4 out of 5 people). COVID Data Tracker. With more than 81.4% of us vaccinated (the number has not been updated since May), if the vaccines are as dangerous as antivax professionals claim, why haven't more of us dropped dead? |
After I pointed out you post mountains of fake data and it would take me forever to get through it all and refute it, you challenged me to refute an entirely unrelated article from those links in your original posts.
Why?
Because all your links in your original posts are CDC. The world according to the filthy, lying, treasonous, CDC. You know, the CDC that determined a person 'with Covid' could be declared to have died 'OF Covid.' That CDC.
The CDC that used an invalid PCR test to inaccurately diagnose 'COVID'. Based on their malevolence, we don't know what mix of illnesses and medical malpractice (COvid Protocol) the patients died of.
The CDC and its shill now declare they and they alone determine what a 'real' journal is. For the rest of us, they are referring to 'controlled media.' But, scientists were reviewing each others work before the CDC launched its most recent bid to become the CDC, and so real scientists all across the world are doing peer reviews on research that exposes the CDC's lies.
Your absolute reliance on the CDC's medical regime is what I mean when I pointed to your mountains of fake data. For your arguments to work, they must take everything the CDC said as law and fact and disregard all other sources, even after the CDC has been caught lying time and time again.
The reason that I posted a single article and invited you to refute it was to demonstrate that refuting bona fide scientific data is beyond your ability. You can't even begin to refute that article, can you?
Because all your links in your original posts are CDC. The world according to the filthy, lying, treasonous, CDC. You know, the CDC that determined a person 'with Covid' could be declared to have died 'OF Covid.' That CDC.
Oh, I get it. If the information comes from the scientific community, you automatically reject it as fake. You cannot provide any actual evidence that ANY article or webpage I linked is false, can you?
The CDC is more of a clearinghouse for scientific information than anything else. The job of the CDC is to collect medical/scientific information from all over the country, analyze it, and publish it so that the public can access it. It is silly to expect the CDC to change its practices because some charlatans used word play to try to convince their marks that people who died of Covid really just spontaneously died and Covid was blamed.
I'll take this opportunity to mention that CDC collects cause of death data on every single person who dies in the US. If there is a death certificate, the CDC has that information.
The CDC that used an invalid PCR test to inaccurately diagnose 'COVID'.
Oh, my, do you have even a clue of how PCR works? Nucleic acid sequences are extremely specific not just to the species but even to the individual. If I want to design a PCR test to detect, for example, the XBB.1.9.1 variant of SARS-CoV-2 that is currently in circulation, I can use Primer-BLAST to design a primer set that will ONLY detect that variant and no other. On the other hand, if I want to detect SARS-CoV-2 and not other coronaviruses, I can design a PCR primer set to do that. I can also design a primer set to detect coronaviruses in general. PCR is a very good and specific tool. It cannot show a positive result if the virus genome is not present, because there is nothing for the primers to attach to.
I'm not sure you can perceive the humor in trying to convince a molecular biologist, someone who has years of experience designing PCR assays, that it is possible for a PCR test to be bogus. But I *am* amused.
The CDC and its shill now declare they and they alone determine what a 'real' journal is.
Um, no. The legitimacy and quality of medical and scientific journals is determined by the worldwide scientific and medical communities, not the CDC. The CDC gets information and guidance from us, not the other way around. If you actually look at and try to read any of the references that I have linked, you will see that they are written by scientists from all over the world who work in a variety of public and private sector organizations. While CDC scientists are encouraged to publish their work, their contributions to the scientific literature are swamped by input from the worldwide scientific community. When I link to a CDC source, unless it is an article written by CDC scientists, none of the information at the source originates from the CDC.
What you have basically told me is that if the information I provide comes from the scientific community, you reject it out of hand. You have no evidence to refute anything. You don't have the scientific background to even know how one would refute anything. And to refute even a single scientific paper, you need to provide both the theoretical background and empiric evidence of why and how the paper is wrong. I can do that with antivax rhetoric, but can you do that with real science?