The first article you linked isn’t peer-reviewed.
Feel free to refute the data points.
The second one was retracted from
publication.
Why?
You’re going to need better sources than that.
Mainstream media have already curtailed their purporting the effectiveness of the vaccines, and are now saying they are only good for six months:
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-plans-covid-19-booster-shots-six-months-instead-eight-wsj-2021-08-25/
People who have already taken the vaccine are viable for replication and mutation of variants due to the vaccines compromising the immune system's antibodies:
https://www.cure-hub.com/post/sars-cov-2-vaccines-breakthrough-infections-and-lasting-natural-immunity
Studies now show that people who are vaccinated are being infected at higher rates:
https://archive.vn/TdQGW
Intravenous injection also increases likelihood of messenger travel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBaIRm4610o
Messenger travel results in toxins spreading throughout your body:
https://archive.md/Pl7pH
This does result in thrombotic events:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccine-spike-protein-travels-from-injection-site-organ-damage/
This is why Moderna and other variants of the vaccine have been banned in various regions, and why there has been a 91.7% increase in heart-related SAEs in kids who have been vaccinated, especially males.
People who care about their health would question why studies are being retracted instead of investigated, and why suppression of data related to thrombosis is taking place instead of being investigated, and why there is such a heavy push for Federal approval of a drug for kids that increases thrombotic events in children by nearly 92%.
These are questions that will never receive answers for the people who actually care about their health or the health of others.
reply
share
degray9 (1126)
3 years ago
Yeah, I asked you to provide peer-reviewed evidence that the vaccine is killing more people than covid. You failed to do so and are now trying to backpedal by extrapolating random information from different sources you can misconstrue into your own warped narrative.
Does your back hurt from moving those goal posts?
I’m going to say again: provide *peer* *reviewed* evidence to support your original assertion. If you can’t, then that’s okay, just man up and say it. But don’t insult everyone’s intelligence by lying through your teeth to try to save face, it’s the sign of a weak and underdeveloped mind.
Because all you’ve shown so far is your own inability to fact check and corroborate what you’re saying matches the evidence you’re providing. I’ve read through multiple source links you’ve posted and they’ve all been faulty or don’t prove what you’re stating. What makes you think I’m going to waste my time reading the others you’ve posted that I didn’t ask for?
Seriously, grow up, and learn a little about the scientific method.
reply
share
cyguration (3945)
3 years ago
Yeah, I asked you to provide peer-reviewed evidence that the vaccine is killing more people than covid.
It was reviewed and rejected. You asked for a review, not for one that was accepted. That's your fault not mine. Be clearer next time.
Does your back hurt from moving those goal posts?
You don't really know what you're arguing if you read my post.
I’ve read through multiple source links you’ve posted and they’ve all been faulty or don’t prove what you’re stating.
How so?
What's faulty about this information here:
https://archive.md/Pl7pH
What makes you think I’m going to waste my time reading the others you’ve posted that I didn’t ask for?
Because intelligent people who want to be informed look at all sides, and examine all the data and the facts before arriving at a conclusion. That's fine if you don't consider yourself one.
Seriously, grow up, and learn a little about the scientific method.
Feel free to exercise said method on every fact exposited in every link I provided. I'll wait.
reply
share
degray9 (1126)
3 years ago
If it was retracted that means it wasn’t fit for publication and there was something wrong with the article. So the problem is really not mine. Like I said, provide peer-reviewed evidence that is reliable.
reply
share
cyguration (3945)
3 years ago
If it was retracted that means it wasn’t fit for publication and there was something wrong with the article.
Read it. There was nothing wrong.
So the problem is really not mine. Like I said, provide peer-reviewed evidence that is reliable.
The evidence is already in the links.
But then again, you're the type who started off your inquisition with a medical falsehood regarding myocarditis, so I wouldn't expect someone spreading lies to be interested in the facts.
Here's a little something extra so you can get an idea of what the medical costs are treating myocarditis (spoiler alert: it's a permanent state that requires incessant care):
https://archive.md/dhuSA
reply
share
degray9 (1126)
3 years ago
I’m going to explain this for the last time. If an article is retracted from publication, then that means there was something wrong with it, and the publishers removed it for having faulty information. End of. As such, the rest of your sources are highly suspect. You cannot be trusted to be truthful now you’ve been fingered.
reply
share
cyguration (3945)
3 years ago
If an article is retracted from publication, then that means there was something wrong with it, and the publishers removed it for having faulty information
For the last time: Point out what the problem was. If there's a data error, point to it. If there's a methodology error, explain what it is. If there's a sample discrepancy, explain how. Otherwise I don't care about speculations. They're fruitless and unproductive.
As such, the rest of your sources are highly suspect.
If you aren't going to read them, then I don't care about your opinion regarding information for which you have chosen to purposely stay ignorant.
reply
share