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“Retracted Article”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/
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Bombshell Vax vs. Unvax Study Finally Sees the Light of Day — And the Results Are Staggering, Pelham wrote: 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“Retracted Article”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.”
You haven't been paying attention. Valid research, like the fact that Ivermectin and HCQ work well, was 'retracted' and denied through professional threats. The Deep State still has a hold on parts of the Administration.
That retraction notice was 'naturally' applied in 2021, long before President Trump took office in 2025. The Plandemic and 'vaccine' hoax was still in motion.
Retraction in
Go ahead and try to spin this. It won’t work but it’s nice to know who the parrots are.
Related: Cleveland Clinic did a study last flu season. They compared employees who got the flu vaccine with those who didn’t. Over 5,000 people in total. They found that those employees getting the flu shot were around 23% more likely to get the flu than those who didn’t get it. That’s negative efficacy.
Of course there will still be people blindly or dishonestly defending any and all vaccines.
Speaking of retractions, didn’t Wiley retract over 10,000 papers over the last few years...?