[ransomnote]

There’s so much extensive information in the article, I hope everyone reads it!

[E. Pluribus Unum]

dogpooduke ain’t gonna like this.

[dadfly]

my God, what a tremendous amount of damage these National Institutes of Co-ordinated Experimenters (NICE) perpetrated.

(yeah, i know, i know, we can’t prove it, but a lot more were saved/cured. or yeah, we didn’t know, we were just following the ‘science.’ or yeah, we were just doing what we were required to do., etc., etc.)

[rdcbn1]

The Biden Administration obsession with coerced vaxing the entire population at any cost was all about destroying the control group on unvaxed people so comparative studies like this could never occur

[9YearLurker]

This has been out for some time, but still good to see reported.

[PGalt]

Thanks ‘note.

[Jacquerie]

<>Dr. Zervos agreed, determined to prove Bigtree and other vaccine skeptics wrong. At the time, he vowed, “Whatever the results, they get published.”<>

After the study results:

<>There, Dr. Zervos openly admitted on tape why he chose not to publish the data. He said bluntly, “Publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I’d be finished.”<>

First, do no harm to my investment portfolio.

[wjcsux]

The reluctance to publishing this study shows the stranglehold that Big Pharma has on the medical industry.

[Sergio]

bkmk

[wafflehouse]

now its a political football. no one will know the truth for years

[airborne]

Refused the jab, as did both of my sons.

The more stories like this that I see just reinforces my happiness!

[If You Want It Fixed - Fix It]

Ok, big deal. You lost all your friends but this guy is still popular!

If that sort of thing matters to you.

[Pelham]

It always pays to go look at the studies our resident Anti Jab fanatics like to post.

In this case when you check the link provided in post #5 you find:

“Retracted Article”
“See the retraction notice”

Oops.

When you follow the link to the retraction notice and click on the full text button you find:

“This retracts the article “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination” in volume 17, 8674.”

“The journal retracts the article “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses along the Axis of Vaccination” cited above [1]. Following publication, concerns were brought to the attention of the editorial office regarding the validity of the conclusions of the published research.

“Adhering to our complaints procedure, an investigation was conducted that raised several methodological issues and confirmed that the conclusions were not supported by strong scientific data. The article is therefore retracted.

“This retraction is approved by the Editor in Chief of the journal.”

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8345674/

[bitt]

p