Medical doctors are not experts in subjects outside of their area of specialization. McCullough is a cardiologist, meaning he has ZERO expertise on infectious disease and countermeasures. His decision to create and spread Covid vaccine misinformation makes him a charlatan, regardless of his past work in cardiology. The number of articles on the subject of cardiovascular disease and kidney disease related to cardiovascular problems that list him as an author is irrelevant. Those are not articles on infectious disease.
But look at this publication history: Anthony S. Fauci, with 1071 citations in PubMed. So, not only does Dr. Fauci have an impressive list of publications, but they are all on the topic of infectious disease.
But you'll reject the expertise of a real infectious disease researcher/physician because, reasons.
When the conspiracies you read tell you to reject anything actual infectious disease physicians and/or researchers say about Covid while elevating some guy who doesn't know squat about infectious disease, there is something wrong with the conspiracies. This is why I say that believing the conspiracies is not a result of rational or logical thought.
Area of expertise is important.
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.
If you have taken any of these contested “vaccines” yourself, I sincerely hope you will not have any deleterious side-effects and will remain healthy. Take care.
Fauci is the largest mass murder in history, but you’re putting him forward as an expert to listen to????
You sound like a vaxxed Karen.
Do you also believe people cause climate change?
Systemic racism?
Critical race theory?
More than two genders?
Abortion as a right?
Gun restrictions?
Mccullough earned his Master of Public Health in 1994.
It is not a vaccine. It is a genetic treatment that they hoped would produce a positive immune response. Turning cells all over body into cpike protein factories is not a vaccine. The immune response doesn’t behave like any other vaccine and finally the length of time the spike protein is produced was severely underestimated. The mRNA was must longer lasting than expected. Flooding the body with a modified version of the spike protein is not an immunological positive activity. It produced non of the primary effects they hopped would happen. Statistically the trials proved it out.
You quote FAUCI? You are a follower, not a leader. We expect Doctors to be interested and conversant in various types of specialties. Where were you when they were misusing PCR tests to diagnose illness? Sorry, you are on the wrong side of this history test, as libtards often write or say.
Re: 24 - more re: Fauci tomorrow.
expertise
bkmk
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.