What did I tell you at the beginning?
"Credentials" and "Consenus".
I don't know anything about cardiology, auto repair, or architecture. By your "reasoning," I am, therefore, the most qualified person to do your heart surgery, fix your car, and draw up blueprints for your next house.
He didn't say that.
Notice how you are inserting the lying weasel words "therefore" and "MOST qualified".
Keep it up, Dingbat. You think nobody notices.
(By your own definition, for example, your classes on "physics, biology, several kinds of chemistry, and calculus" are mostly irrelevant to anything you say.)
So by the logical contrapositive, if those classes are relevant to your work on vaccines (How is a riemann sum or the central limit theorem relevant to vaccines?), then experts in other field may well have something to offer on the debate.
Secondly, McCullough was talking primarily of retrospective observed events, in the cardiac tissue, of those who had received the jab.
So you are allowed to comment on his specialty, but he can't comment on his specialty because it makes you look bad.
Nice double standard.
In favor ONLY of jab pushers.
Again.
Note the contrast to your own earlier statement that Sort of. My PhD is in biochemistry and molecular biology. I think of this as a sort of "general practice" scientist, a field that is applicable to many different kinds of research. My career path led me into various positions related to infectious disease research and countermeasures development. It wasn't planned that way. I started work at a new facility and one of the first questions was, "How much do you know about influenza?" I answered that I used to sit next to a nurse who collected patient samples for an influenza study and that was enough for them to designate me as the influenza expert. Of course, I read a lot, I talked to a CDC physician who was familiar with influenza, and I became the expert that my boss expected me to be.
So by your own admission, "sitting next to a nurse who collected patient samples" was enough to get you designated as the influenza expert.
Was this in Malone's lab? Or was it after your shining and glorious PhD?
Because you sure like giving yourself the benefit of the doubt, and allowing anyone even remotely in favor of the death jabs every consideration, but giving "the doubt of the benefit" even to your own thesis advisor.
Incidentally, since you seem to be (in your own behalf only) a fan of first hand information and peer-review quotes, can you give a specific quote from "Bob" lately which indicates he is saying things about mRNA which he himself knows to be untrue ?
(Your quote here.
He is. He holds an MD degree with a specialization in pathology. This means that his theoretical knowledge of nucleic acid chemistry and function is probably not as deep as mine (half of my PhD was in molecular biology, which is the study of nucleic acids). But, yes, he knows enough to know that exogenous mRNA cannot modify the human DNA genome.
Did he explicitly say the mRNA was modifying the human DNA genome (in an earnest statement, something more than a slip of the tongue)? Or did he state "the shots can modify the DNA" and you, full of your usual BS, declared ex cathedra that "the shots CANNOT modify the DNA" before finding out about the plasmid contamination with the SV40 promoter segment?
Key point there, being
a) Pfizer and its lackeys "certified" that the shots didn't have DNA.
b) The test they used were sensitive to a minimum DNA fragment length of ~100 nucleotides.
c) IIRC, the SV40 is about 72 nucleotides long. But it is still a fragment of DNA, and, "not yet demonstrated by being published in a Pfizer influenced peer-review process" is not quite the same as "demonstrated conclusively to be impossible" in the way you like to pretend.
Hint: quit blowing smoke.
I nailed your ass on the 2020 SEC report, and added to that Moderna's trying to revolutionize medicine through injectable mRNA, in a trade rag dating from 2016.
That gives motive; we are now hashing out means and opportunity.
Dingbat.
Yes. That got my foot in the door. But in order to stay there, I actually had to become an influenza expert. I became that expert because I read many papers and attended meetings on influenza virology and vaccine development, and I could consult a CDC doctor who knew a lot of influenza experts over at the CDC. Lots of people consulted me about influenza, and I won a pretty nice award for my work in that position.
My supervisor knew that I was smart enough to become that expert. He had my CV (resume for doctors) in front of him and knew what I could do.
Secondly, McCullough was talking primarily of retrospective observed events, in the cardiac tissue, of those who had received the jab.
No. He never did that. He is not a pathologist who is trained to look at tissue sections and figure out what is going on. His "retrospective studies" consist of looking through medical records and published case reports in order to try to piece together a narrative that fits his agenda.
A study of cardiac tissue collected at autopsy is not a retrospective study. It is a case report. By definition, a retrospective study only looks at medical records and published studies.
I think what you are actually referring to was a review (linked below) that McCullough and co-authors wrote. This review, like the retrospective "study" which tried to "prove" medical benefit for Covid patients from hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, was pieced together to support a narrative. Reviews are not written to describe research that the authors personally conducted. They are sourced from studies that OTHER scientists did. They are meant to provide an overview of the current status of research and knowledge in a given field.
McCullough did not personally conduct any autopsies or examine cardiac biopsy tissue for this review. Autoimmune inflammatory reactions triggered by the COVID-19 genetic vaccines in terminally differentiated tissues. In order to support the narrative, he referred to four other papers. One of these only described biopsies (taken from living people). The other three referred to a total of seven autopsies of people who died following Covid vaccination. They were not definitive "proof" that vaccine killed anyone. One of the papers describes a 14 year old Japanese girl who died, a case which antivax propaganda creators love to tout as "proof" that vaccines will kill you. However, it turned out during autopsy that the girl had pneumonia. I would hypothesize that her immune system was already quite actively fighting the pneumonia, and that vaccination at that time tipped her over into a fatal cytokine storm.
Let's assume that the other six of those seven autopsies represented a person who died from a Covid vaccination. That is 6 deaths out of 220,756,604 people who have received at least two shots. That comes out to one death per 36.79 million people. That is way lower than your risk of dying from any cause. At age 50, you have a 0.5% chance of dying within the next year. This makes your chance of dying within any given six week period one in 1,738. By age 80, your risk of dying in that same time frame is one in 149.
Odds of dying in the US: Age, gender and more.
The reason I choose a six week time frame is because vaccine side effects occur within six weeks. Most occur within the first day or so. In addition, if you catch Covid, the overall risk of dying is 1%; this risk increases the older you are. The risk assessment is in deciding whether a one in 36.79 million risk from the vaccine is higher or lower than your risk of dying from any cause or from Covid. Since it is significantly lower and the vaccine has been shown to decrease risk of serious outcome from Covid, I'll choose to get the vaccine.
BTW, if you want to criticize my analysis of the McCullough review, read it in its entirety first and make sure you understand it sufficiently to point out where I am wrong. Otherwise, don't bother.