With your “PhD level of knowledge” (from your post 103) and being an “infectious disease and vaccines research specialist” one would think that you might be upset by peer reviewed evidence showed that the studies used to get the emergency use authorizations (EUA) by Pfizer excluded data and were doctored. But you have made it obvious at this point that you are just another “scientist” who believes that scientific ethics should take a back seat when it comes to forwarding an agenda. Here is the link again, just another that you refuse to comment on...
You have made repeated assumptions and disparaging remarks about myself and others who have expressed concern about the biggest “vaccine” fail in the history of medicine. Here is some information about my own experiences.
My wife is a retired nurse and was a department head at multi-level care facilities. Some of these places lost dozens of residents/patients in a month when a bad flu was going around. These people were often people who both of us had befriended. And my own job frequently transporting people who were very sick and dying to the hospital also put me in close contact with thousands of patients.
We have both been advocates for the use of vaccines to save lives. I was a volunteer bus driver for many years and took people to places where they could get their vaccines. My wife and I did volunteer and paid work for the Kirkland Life Care Center which was the first nursing care facility to be hit hard by Covid in the United States.
From the time it became obvious that the Covid vaccination program was botched I have predicted that the issue that was likely to cause the most deaths in the long run was the lack of trust in vaccines and their providers that was likely to result. I wish that instead of taking the hard pro big-pharma line that you have consistently expressed that you would try to use your vast experience and expertise to explore some of the problems that were caused by ill-advised politicians and this botched vaccination development program. The longer you stick your head in the sand in the face of constantly mounting evidence, the more out of touch you seem.
I am not going to repeat my personal experiences and losses which have caused horrible problems and deaths to friends and family related directly to these “vaccines” which have been appalling. And I apologize again for being so abrupt with you. I believe that you are the one who has been blinded by confirmation bias which is sad because with your knowledge, experience and intelligence you are squandering an opportunity to inform and help your fellow citizens in ways that could be very helpful.
Small hint for future reference:
Conspiracy and antivax/anti-science sites are not credible sources of scientific information.
...that have caused me to become very bitter at those who make “appeals to authority” in their posts here yet include little or no information that has any value.
Links to scientific studies published in the medical literature are not, in fact, "appeals to authority." They are direct links to the pertinent information. Your inability to read and understand the medical/scientific literature does not constitute a failure to provide information on my part.
one would think that you might be upset by peer reviewed evidence showed that the studies used to get the emergency use authorizations (EUA) by Pfizer excluded data and were doctored
You don't really understand what peer-reviewed evidence is or how to recognize it, do you?
Your only "proof" that any Pfizer studies were "doctored" consists of a link to The Epoch Times. While I would be willing to read a conspiratorial "news" site in order to find the original studies the conspiracists misrepresented, The Epoch Times informs me that I have read my limit of articles and will have to subscribe to read any more. Yeah, that's not happening.
Groups like The Epoch Times get away with making claims of hidden data, etc., because they know that their readers are not inclined to do their own research and don't know how to find the information anyway. So let me help you out a bit with actual links:
Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.
This FDA web page contains links to several documents. I would draw your attention to the "Fact sheet" link for healthcare providers and the "Decision memorandum" issued Sept 11, 2023. These are both highly technical documents which contain information about the clinical trials, vaccine formulation, supporting studies published in the medical literature, etc. These are not light reading; the fact sheet is 60 pages and the decision memo is 37 pages. And the links and references provided within the documents add many more pages of information.
Clinicaltrials.gov This is a searchable database of registered clinical trials. You can search for a trial on any subject you like. I searched for "Covid-19" "mRNA" and "vaccine" and found 322 studies. Hmm, if "big pharma" were trying to hide stuff, they wouldn't put it in a searchable database for anyone to find it, would they?
Pubmed search for "covid vaccine." This search turned up over 64 thousand results. The search can always be refined by adding search terms such as "side effects" or "efficacy", etc.
We have both been advocates for the use of vaccines to save lives.
I very often see such claims inserted into the same old same old antivax rhetoric that has been around for the last 200 years. Even that statement is suspiciously similar to the statement "We're not against vaccines, we're just FOR safe vaccines" that has been said ad nauseum during previous antivax campaigns. So, let's just say that I suspect that use of such language is an attempt to be disingenuous.
I found this article published in Newsweek in Feb 2019: 9 Anti-Vaxxer Myths Debunked.
Amazing. Every antivaxxer myth in that article is said almost unchanged about the Covid vaccines. (The claim about Covid vaccine is that it substitutes "turbo-cancer" or something similar for "autism.")
You are my hero, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.