I thank you again for your response. You have put a lot of effort into this thread in the face of some harsh criticism.
I am sorry there was a typo in my last post to you. It was post 113 where you said, “Sometimes, having the PhD level of knowledge is a disadvantage for making a concise point.” Your byline says, “Dr. exDemMom, infectious disease and vaccines research specialist.” It seems that you are telling us that you have a PhD in infectious diseases and vaccines. Is that correct or am I misinterpreting what you have said?
The following link is to the about page of the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research
“The International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research is a peer-reviewed scholarly open access journal concerning the development, distribution, and monitoring of vaccines and their components. All content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose.”
https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR
In your opinion is the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research a “Conspiracy and antivax/anti-science site”?
Are the authors of the following article, and study Corinne A. Michels, PhD; Daniel Perrier, BSEE; Jeyanthi Kunadhasan, MD; Ed Clark, MSE; Joseph Gehrett, MD; Barbara Gehrett, MD; Kim Kwiatek, MD; Sarah Adams, RN; Robert Chandler, MD; Leah A. Stagno, BS, AAS; Tony Damian CMT, CST, RMT; Erika Delph, RPh; and Chris Flowers, MD “antivaxers and conspiracy theorists”?
https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/86/224
The peer reviewed article and study end with this statement, “Had the FDA been aware of the cardiac event signal documented in this report, regulators might have given second thoughts regarding safety problems with the mRNA vaccine, as was seen in the 1976 swine flu vaccine debacle. Despite evidence of the validity of the early warning signals and other adverse events reported in the post-marketing of the mRNA vaccines, this novel type of vaccine platform has not been removed from the market and has even been approved for children as young as 6 months. Why?”
In truth I am highly skeptical that the claims that you have made regarding your education and background are accurate. I am doubtful that you have the ability to read and comprehend the contents of the above peer reviewed study and article. Your PhD level expertise seems to be in labeling others anti-science, anti-vaxers, and conspiracy theorists. The only PhD you likely have is in the delivery of BS.
You do not believe in scientific principles or scientific ethics. You do not believe in science you believe in Scientism. You are not a scientist. You have put a lot of effort into trying to convince others that we should trust big pharma, Joe Biden, and the Democrats claims about the safety of the “vaccines”. You have made insults and false characterizations about many here. You have had a few allies in this effort, but as far as I can tell you have failed to change the opinions of anyone here who is capable of critical thought.
Very concise and well reasoned arguments. I will be looking forward to her response. Unless of course, she is off the clock. ;>)
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.
In your opinion is the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research a “Conspiracy and antivax/anti-science site”?
Very much so. I've done a detailed analysis of this particular "journal" before and don't really have the energy to do so again right now. I tried to convey as clearly as possible the "red flags" that indicate that this is a scam "journal." But, as you already quoted me saying, sometimes the PhD education interferes with plain communication, so I may not have communicated completely clearly what those red flags are.
Of the red flags, there are two that are especially pertinent: the qualifications of the majority of the editorial staff who are not infectious disease specialists or research scientists, and the fact that this "journal" is not indexed in PubMed. PubMed.gov is a database containing citation data, abstracts, and sometimes entire research articles published in the medical science literature. With the exception of journals published in totalitarian regimes like North Korea or Cuba, these journals come from all over the world and represent the work of all medical scientists. Although it is common practice to publish articles in English, there is no language requirement for the journals. The criteria for a journal to be included in the PubMed.gov database is that it meets scientific standards as set by the research/medical community.
Did you read it? Did you look through the references to see the quality and type of references used? Are you able to access those references and related data, such as the clinical trial registration filed by Pfizer at Clinicaltrials.gov? Did you read the references and verify that their content is accurately summarized in the article?
I'm fairly certain that this is one of the articles I linked in my previous explanation of how to recognize IVJTPR as a bogus journal, so I now think you already saw that explanation.
This article is not a study report. None of the authors actually wrote a research proposal, ran it through ethics committees, or submitted it to a funding agency. They conducted absolutely zero original research and present absolutely zero original information. This article type, which is based on information contained in other articles or sources, is called a "review article." The purpose of a typical review article is to summarize the current status of knowledge in the field and to suggest future lines of research.
The use of the word "peer-review" is misleading. If you read the information for authors section of that website, you will see that the "peers" are selected from the editorial staff. This is not really peer-review. A real journal selects reviewers from scientists in the field who are recognized expertise in the area of research described in the manuscript. For example, an article describing observations of rabies-infected brains might be reviewed by a virologist, a veterinarian, a pathologist, and a cytologist because those are experts who would know the most about rabies. They look for scientific validity, quality of data and data analysis, how well the study adds to the knowledge base in that area of research, etc.
Another red flag indicator is the language used in that "review." For example, it places scare quotes around the word "pandemic" and other phrases in the abstract, for the purpose of communicating that these are not real phenomena. (I used quotes around the word "review" above for the same purpose: that article is not a true review.) Scientists do not use scare quotes in their professional publications.
There are also examples of what I will call "accusatory" language which are highly unprofessional and unscientific. For example, "In a placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial, causality is determined on a statistical basis at the termination of the trial when information on all participants can be taken into consideration. This is a decision that should not be done by the commercial sponsor of the trial who has a conflict of interest regarding the treatment, as was done in this trial by the sponsor Pfizer/BioNTech." The first sentence in this quote is completely true and reflects clinical trial practice. The second sentence is problematic. What decision, specifically, is this referring to that Pfizer should not have made? The reader is supposed to assume from this that Pfizer engaged in unethical behavior, but what that behavior is, we'll never know.
As an editorial note, I will point out that Pfizer did not personally conduct the clinical trials. As you can see in this Pfizer registration of a clinical trial A Study to Evaluate Safety, Tolerability, & Immunogenicity of Multiple Formulations of BNT162b2 Against COVID-19 in Healthy Adults, the clinical trials were conducted by organizations in several areas of the country. Those organizations are clinical research companies and universities. In other words, Pfizer outsourced the clinical trials to independent organizations. Furthermore, those clinical trials are all monitored by the FDA. I know from experience that the FDA will stop a trial at the drop of a hat if there is any issue with it.
And this quote from the IVJTPR (which you previously quoted) is another example of accusatory language: "Had the FDA been aware of the cardiac event signal documented in this report, regulators might have given second thoughts regarding safety problems with the mRNA vaccine, as was seen in the 1976 swine flu vaccine debacle."
So, this accuses the FDA of being unaware of the clinical trials that it oversees and of being incompetent. Such language is very unprofessional. But, of course, the purpose of this "review" is not to share information with the scientific community. Its purpose is to promote a narrative in which dangerous adverse events occurred during the clinical trial which everyone purposely overlooked. All of the references, the pseudoscientific language, etc., are designed to convince the target audience (who are not scientists) that these people really know what they're talking about. No one, in a real scientific publication, will say "The FDA should have done ..." or accuse anyone of being sloppy, cutting corners, etc., as is done in this "review."
You do not believe in scientific principles or scientific ethics. You do not believe in science you believe in Scientism. You are not a scientist.
When people start with the ad hominem attacks, I know it is because they cannot refute anything I say with actual facts. If (like professional antivaxxers) I'm making stuff up or saying that scientific publications say things they don't say, that should be easy enough to demonstrate. For example, I frequently mention that Covid-19 disease causes heart damage. For example, let me talk about specific heart damage such as arrhythmias caused by Covid infection which raise the risk of sudden cardiac death in Covid patients and survivors and use this review as supporting evidence: Long COVID-19 Syndrome and Sudden Cardiac Death: The Phantom Menace. If I am lying, then you should be able to read the review and explain exactly how I lied. You should be able to access and read the references to original studies which inform the review and show that I misrepresented them and that they do not support a conclusion that Covid-19 related heart damage is a serious health concern. (Note: the review itself is not printed on line. You have to download a pdf to read it.)
Can you do that?