And Rochelle Walensky, head of the CDC, is an MPH.
And they know how to run a large organization, which is a skill not taught in veterinary or MPH school. They know how to find the right people for the job, plus they do have some relevant expertise. Rachel Walensky is an internal medicine doc whose undergraduate degree major was biochemistry and molecular biology and who has an MPH in "clinical effectiveness." Albert Bourla has a DVM and his doctorate (PhD) in the biotechnology of reproduction shows that he has a strong research-oriented background. Not only do both of these people have education and experience in areas that are directly relevant to the work of their respective organizations, they have a lot of very intelligent people who are experts in their fields who report to them.
The point I was trying to make is that when someone uses their credentials to pass themselves off as an expert on a topic in which they have no demonstrated education or experience, they are probably trying to scam you. This is certainly the case with Peter McCullough.
Peter McCullough is not an infectious disease expert. He is a cardiologist. I would expect him to be able to speak knowledgeably on heart damage caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection (and he has published on that subject). Having an MPH (degree major not mentioned) qualifies him to work with public health experts, but, again, that is not the qualification needed to expertly discuss the immune response following vaccination or to discuss the pre-clinical and clinical research process and study results during vaccine R&D. That is a completely different skill set. What he is doing is using his degrees and experience in a different field to pass himself off as an expert in an unrelated field.
Rochelle Walensky, Albert Bourla, Peter A. McCullough.
You will notice that (unlike McCullough) I never claim expertise in subjects outside of my area of expertise. I do not claim any particular expertise in neurology, nephrology, ophthalmology, etc., nor do I claim any ability to diagnose or treat disease. That's because I didn't study those fields. I studied biochemistry and molecular biology, and my career was focused on aspects of infectious disease countermeasures development. So this is what I discuss.
I must be wrong or something, because SCIENCE™!
Why do you distrust science so much? I sense that you do not understand the scientific process and you do not have even a high school level of understanding of science. Still, that can be said of most people, but most people are at least able to recognize expertise and tell the difference between a real expert (like Paul Offit) and a scammer (like Barbara Loe Fisher who founded the antivax scam organization National Vaccine Information Center).
Do you even sense the irony in rejecting everything the scientific community has to say about vaccines, while claiming that Peter McCullough and his ilk are giving you the scientific "truth"?
I never heard of either of them.
So they cannot have formed any element of my opinion.
It's nice playing logical fallacy with you on seemingly every single post of yours, Dingbat.
In this last post, "pin-the-{nonexistent}-fail-on-the-strawman".
Just cause something is published -- and yes, even if it has passed the sacred ritual of PEER-REVIEW! -- is not enough to make it true, accurate, honest, or reliable.
Did you ever dig up the link to the Harvard Cardiologist who got thrown out on his ear?
Dingbat.
And yet it seems that you can't admit, that the jabs, which introduce the modified mRNA directly into the blood -- muscle tissue is highly perfused-- (which means, unless it is all absorbed into other tissue before the circulation carries it into the heart, it gets exposed to the heart) -- and clinically, the spike protein has been shown by Pfizer's internal documents ("admission against interest" and not invented or twisted by an outsider) to spread throughout the body-- that means the spike protein from the jabs, which is designed to bind to the same ACE-2 receptors as the real gain-of-function engineered virus. Which means if he is seeing the heart damage from those who have received the jabs, he IS qualified (at literally a world-class level) to discuss it.
The ONLY possible hope you have to impeach him, is to show that he had anecdotal reports of symptoms, did no diagnostics, and then jumped to the conclusion that "well it must have been the dratted clot shots") and lashed out.
But he might've, you know, as an MD, had his nurse take a clinic history and just asked the patients if they've been jabbed.
Dingbat.
Why do you distrust science so much? I sense that you do not understand the scientific process and you do not have even a high school level of understanding of science.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (whew!)
Trust me on this, you do NOT want to go there.
Cretin.