By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 14:32 - Nov 9 by A_Fans_Dad
You obviously suffer with the same kind of reading comprehension as scotia. Quote "Inpatient myocarditis and pericarditis diagnoses were retrieved from day 10 after positive PCR" From day 10 onwards not up to day 10. Quote "Follow-up was censored on 28 February 2021, with minimum observation of 18 days." Therefore a minimum of 10 to 28 days after tesing. No, I don't believe in PCR as a diagnostic, but they all do. You can only accept what they decide to use.
Of course the majority of post Vaccination cardiac-related sequelae do emerge within 10 days.
Though across all age groups the rate following infection is at least 8-fold higher. Even in younger males infection is much higher. It's in the 100s of observational and cohort studies. But grifters only consider what shows their corrupt argument.
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 16:09 - Nov 9 by Sandanista
Though across all age groups the rate following infection is at least 8-fold higher. Even in younger males infection is much higher. It's in the 100s of observational and cohort studies. But grifters only consider what shows their corrupt argument.
Now stop giving 'crooked nurse Campbell' money and look at the truth.
I don't need your help to find what I want. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p Yes the risk from COVID are higher than the Vaccine for some vaccines and some age groups. However Quote "In men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after a second dose of mRNA-1273 than after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (97 [95% CI, 91—99] versus 16 [95% CI, 12—18]). "
But let's be clear there are many studies now showing that the Vaccines become ineffective after a few months, so anyone vaccinated risks heart damage, blood clots and many other serious side effects from the vaccine and then when they are no longer protected they risk further damage from COVID if they get it. But I am not going to argue with you, we have been there many times and you have been proved wrong many times over. "The only way to control the pandemic is prevention" Except COVID vaccines don't prevent, just as I said, they are leaky and they just delay and while delaying can seriously affect the immune system. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p
"Vaccines are pennies", no they are not, many countries are paying over £20 per shot for Pfizer & Moderna vaxxes, not once but 3 or 4 times for waning protection.
Like I said I don't need your help thanks.
PS I haven't even watched the good Doctors video, I didn't need to I already knew about those studies.
0
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 20:39 - Nov 9 with 860 views
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 19:36 - Nov 9 by A_Fans_Dad
I don't need your help to find what I want. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p Yes the risk from COVID are higher than the Vaccine for some vaccines and some age groups. However Quote "In men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after a second dose of mRNA-1273 than after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (97 [95% CI, 91—99] versus 16 [95% CI, 12—18]). "
But let's be clear there are many studies now showing that the Vaccines become ineffective after a few months, so anyone vaccinated risks heart damage, blood clots and many other serious side effects from the vaccine and then when they are no longer protected they risk further damage from COVID if they get it. But I am not going to argue with you, we have been there many times and you have been proved wrong many times over. "The only way to control the pandemic is prevention" Except COVID vaccines don't prevent, just as I said, they are leaky and they just delay and while delaying can seriously affect the immune system. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p
"Vaccines are pennies", no they are not, many countries are paying over £20 per shot for Pfizer & Moderna vaxxes, not once but 3 or 4 times for waning protection.
Like I said I don't need your help thanks.
PS I haven't even watched the good Doctors video, I didn't need to I already knew about those studies.
Worth a read in full. We've encountered the authors of that paper before. One is a homeopathic practitioner and another is a computer scientist who blamed covid on weed killer and e-cigarettes.
And then there is McCullogh.
0
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 18:17 - Nov 11 with 812 views
Worth a read in full. We've encountered the authors of that paper before. One is a homeopathic practitioner and another is a computer scientist who blamed covid on weed killer and e-cigarettes.
And then there is McCullogh.
Yes it is worth a full read if you can stomach misinformation.
Let's start with the Author's use of words to denigrate the Lead Author and the promotion of one of the internets most prolific fact checkers. Stephanie Seneff according to the Author's quote "she has no primary expertise in vaccines, infectious disease, public health, epidemiology, or any other relevant biomedical academic disciplines. Rather, she’s a computer scientist at MIT, and her sole qualification (if you can call it that) is an undergraduate biophysics degree from the late 1960s." So let's put the record straight shall we? She has A Bachelor of Science (BS) in biophysics in 1968, A Master's (MS) and engineering degrees in electrical engineering in 1980 A doctoral degree (PhD) in computer science and electrical engineering in 1985. Whereas the internet factchecker, one Professor Jeffrey S Morris who is a Professor of Biostatistics, a Mathematical Statistician has A BS ib Mathematics Education in 1993. A Masters [(b]MS) in Statistics in 1997. A (PhD) in Statistics in 2000.
As you can see the internet factchecker is so much more highly qualified to judge on bioblogy ,infectious deseases and vaccines than Stephanie Seneff , oh wait a minute, no he is not, he doesn't even have a BS in Biology., he is just a Statistician, one of those people you don't believe.
The author also says "She was an antivaxxer before the pandemic who blamed vaccines and GMOs for autism", well no it was a paper on GMOs that use glyphosate and the paper was on links to Autism, Cancer and many other illnesses in 2013. Have you looked at the status of glyphosate lately? Guess what linked to Cancer, banned by many countries and the subject of multimillion dollar lawsuits against Monsanto (Roundup)..
How about the the actual data though, well there is this gem right at the beginning "A preprint has revealed a remarkable difference between the characteristics of the immune response to an infection with SARS-CoV-2 as compared with the immune response to an mRNA vaccine against COVID-19 (Ivanova et al., 2021). Where does that link go? Straight back to this review article! (If you don’t believe me and think that I altered the link, just go to the article itself and click on the link.)"
Of course the link goes to the same paper, whereas his link just takes you to the header of their paper their link takes you to the REFERENCE section, as most study paper links do, and to the actual link to the paper.
He quotes Professor Jeffrey S Morris a lot, one of them is this. "In fact, so much of their evidence is from papers on severe COVID-19 infections, not vaccination, much of the evidence in this article might be better suited to a paper pointing out potential downstream dangers of severe COVID-19 infections than on trying to raise alarm about mRNA vaccination." Well if the list of References is anything to go by that is a total exaggeration typical of him. The number of references involving background data on Mrna, cancer and autoimmune deseases had most references with over 130 papers, the papers on Covid Vaccines had 59 references and actual COVID papers 26 references. The whole point of the 130 papers on background information is to show the possible links to the Vaccine spike protein and nano particles affecting the organs, cells and immune system.
He also quotes his analysis of the VAERs data where he selects the table on Nerve inflammation and selects just one item (Anosmia) out of 14 items listed and states "One nerve inflammation symptom is anosmia. They claim this “clearly demonstrates” the spike injected into arm reached the olfactory nerve, ignoring that anosmia is common with COVID-19 but not linked to vaccine, and could be caused by previous COVID-19 infection, not vaccine." Note the "could" without a shred of evidence that any of them actually had COVID19. No mention of the other 13 items on the list at all, wow what rebuttal. He then looks at other tables and criticises them without any facts, just pure uneducated opinion.
Let's also look at other work by Professor Jeffrey S Morris of Big Pharma financed Pen Uni. He pulls a neat trick when analysing the Renz paper on Vaccines and Medicare Excess Mortality. He decides that as the COVID Vaccines are given separately then they should be calculated separately when compared to a single Flu vaccination. The problem with this response is that the original COVID Vaccine Treatment esablished that 2 vaccinations to the same person were required to be effective, wheras the Flu treatment only requires 1. If this was treatment by any other medicine where one treatment only required 1 pill but another treatment required 10 pills would you calculate the virulence of the treatment by dividing the second treatment by 10? Of course not, it is nonsense, especially when the 29,398 people who died in the 1st vaccine batch didn't even get to have the second vaccine where another 21,031 deaths occurred, compared to 25,473 deaths related to Flu.
I could go on, but what is the point.
As usual anything that suits your view is uncritically accepted as true, but anything that dosn't is attacked
[Post edited 11 Nov 2022 22:56]
0
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 19:17 - Nov 11 with 785 views
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 18:17 - Nov 11 by A_Fans_Dad
Yes it is worth a full read if you can stomach misinformation.
Let's start with the Author's use of words to denigrate the Lead Author and the promotion of one of the internets most prolific fact checkers. Stephanie Seneff according to the Author's quote "she has no primary expertise in vaccines, infectious disease, public health, epidemiology, or any other relevant biomedical academic disciplines. Rather, she’s a computer scientist at MIT, and her sole qualification (if you can call it that) is an undergraduate biophysics degree from the late 1960s." So let's put the record straight shall we? She has A Bachelor of Science (BS) in biophysics in 1968, A Master's (MS) and engineering degrees in electrical engineering in 1980 A doctoral degree (PhD) in computer science and electrical engineering in 1985. Whereas the internet factchecker, one Professor Jeffrey S Morris who is a Professor of Biostatistics, a Mathematical Statistician has A BS ib Mathematics Education in 1993. A Masters [(b]MS) in Statistics in 1997. A (PhD) in Statistics in 2000.
As you can see the internet factchecker is so much more highly qualified to judge on bioblogy ,infectious deseases and vaccines than Stephanie Seneff , oh wait a minute, no he is not, he doesn't even have a BS in Biology., he is just a Statistician, one of those people you don't believe.
The author also says "She was an antivaxxer before the pandemic who blamed vaccines and GMOs for autism", well no it was a paper on GMOs that use glyphosate and the paper was on links to Autism, Cancer and many other illnesses in 2013. Have you looked at the status of glyphosate lately? Guess what linked to Cancer, banned by many countries and the subject of multimillion dollar lawsuits against Monsanto (Roundup)..
How about the the actual data though, well there is this gem right at the beginning "A preprint has revealed a remarkable difference between the characteristics of the immune response to an infection with SARS-CoV-2 as compared with the immune response to an mRNA vaccine against COVID-19 (Ivanova et al., 2021). Where does that link go? Straight back to this review article! (If you don’t believe me and think that I altered the link, just go to the article itself and click on the link.)"
Of course the link goes to the same paper, whereas his link just takes you to the header of their paper their link takes you to the REFERENCE section, as most study paper links do, and to the actual link to the paper.
He quotes Professor Jeffrey S Morris a lot, one of them is this. "In fact, so much of their evidence is from papers on severe COVID-19 infections, not vaccination, much of the evidence in this article might be better suited to a paper pointing out potential downstream dangers of severe COVID-19 infections than on trying to raise alarm about mRNA vaccination." Well if the list of References is anything to go by that is a total exaggeration typical of him. The number of references involving background data on Mrna, cancer and autoimmune deseases had most references with over 130 papers, the papers on Covid Vaccines had 59 references and actual COVID papers 26 references. The whole point of the 130 papers on background information is to show the possible links to the Vaccine spike protein and nano particles affecting the organs, cells and immune system.
He also quotes his analysis of the VAERs data where he selects the table on Nerve inflammation and selects just one item (Anosmia) out of 14 items listed and states "One nerve inflammation symptom is anosmia. They claim this “clearly demonstrates” the spike injected into arm reached the olfactory nerve, ignoring that anosmia is common with COVID-19 but not linked to vaccine, and could be caused by previous COVID-19 infection, not vaccine." Note the "could" without a shred of evidence that any of them actually had COVID19. No mention of the other 13 items on the list at all, wow what rebuttal. He then looks at other tables and criticises them without any facts, just pure uneducated opinion.
Let's also look at other work by Professor Jeffrey S Morris of Big Pharma financed Pen Uni. He pulls a neat trick when analysing the Renz paper on Vaccines and Medicare Excess Mortality. He decides that as the COVID Vaccines are given separately then they should be calculated separately when compared to a single Flu vaccination. The problem with this response is that the original COVID Vaccine Treatment esablished that 2 vaccinations to the same person were required to be effective, wheras the Flu treatment only requires 1. If this was treatment by any other medicine where one treatment only required 1 pill but another treatment required 10 pills would you calculate the virulence of the treatment by dividing the second treatment by 10? Of course not, it is nonsense, especially when the 29,398 people who died in the 1st vaccine batch didn't even get to have the second vaccine where another 21,031 deaths occurred, compared to 25,473 deaths related to Flu.
I could go on, but what is the point.
As usual anything that suits your view is uncritically accepted as true, but anything that dosn't is attacked
[Post edited 11 Nov 2022 22:56]
What are you talking about? The author of that article isn't a statistician at all but a renowned breast cancer surgeon.
He is referring to Seneff's sole relevant qualification, which is a BSc in Biophysics compared to the authors decades of medical experience. She studied a barely relevant topic for 3 years he's studied and practiced medicine for decades.
You seem to believe a woman less qualified than myself, who thinks covid was exacerbated by a weed killer over pretty much every research scientist and medical professional in the world.
I seriously think you need to take a step back from this.
0
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 22:55 - Nov 11 with 749 views
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 19:17 - Nov 11 by Scotia
What are you talking about? The author of that article isn't a statistician at all but a renowned breast cancer surgeon.
He is referring to Seneff's sole relevant qualification, which is a BSc in Biophysics compared to the authors decades of medical experience. She studied a barely relevant topic for 3 years he's studied and practiced medicine for decades.
You seem to believe a woman less qualified than myself, who thinks covid was exacerbated by a weed killer over pretty much every research scientist and medical professional in the world.
I seriously think you need to take a step back from this.
As usual your reading comprehension is abysmal. Yes the auther is a Surgeon, but the so called expert he quotes throughout is the statistician Professor Jeffrey S Morris. You really need to up you game.
0
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 07:19 - Nov 12 with 723 views
Covid doesn't cause Myocarditis or Pericarditis, a large-scale Israeli study of 196.992 unvaccinated adults after Covid infection showed that "Covid infection was not associated with either myocarditis or pericarditis"
0
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 07:34 - Nov 12 with 718 views
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 22:55 - Nov 11 by A_Fans_Dad
As usual your reading comprehension is abysmal. Yes the auther is a Surgeon, but the so called expert he quotes throughout is the statistician Professor Jeffrey S Morris. You really need to up you game.
What difference does that make? The statistician isn't attempting to explain the immune response to an infectious disease. He's explaining stats that are subsequently relayed in an article by a renowned surgeon. They are both more relevant experts in what they are writing and explaining.
The bottom line is you've attempted to denigrate an article but got your opening argument wrong. Seneff is not at all qualified to write this paper.
Look, I don't mean to be insult but if you believe a word a computer scientist with a weed killer obsession says about an infectious disease over 99.9% of the medical profession then you clearly have issues with perception, trust and paranoia.
I really don't think you should be allowed to post this nonsense on here, people could believe you and end up getting really quite ill. Or worse. It's far more dangerous than pro Russian propaganda.
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 07:34 - Nov 12 by Scotia
What difference does that make? The statistician isn't attempting to explain the immune response to an infectious disease. He's explaining stats that are subsequently relayed in an article by a renowned surgeon. They are both more relevant experts in what they are writing and explaining.
The bottom line is you've attempted to denigrate an article but got your opening argument wrong. Seneff is not at all qualified to write this paper.
Look, I don't mean to be insult but if you believe a word a computer scientist with a weed killer obsession says about an infectious disease over 99.9% of the medical profession then you clearly have issues with perception, trust and paranoia.
I really don't think you should be allowed to post this nonsense on here, people could believe you and end up getting really quite ill. Or worse. It's far more dangerous than pro Russian propaganda.
There is a filter issue due to a lack of understanding of the science ……. That’s why the arguments are statistical not biological. These are fed cherry picked articles. There are hundreds of studies which show the cardiac link. But apparently these don’t count.
1
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 11:12 - Nov 12 with 692 views
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 07:19 - Nov 12 by mangohilljack
Covid doesn't cause Myocarditis or Pericarditis, a large-scale Israeli study of 196.992 unvaccinated adults after Covid infection showed that "Covid infection was not associated with either myocarditis or pericarditis"
Check out page 2 of this thread, it has been discussed. It does cause those issues, far moreso than vaccination.
0
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 11:49 - Nov 12 with 680 views
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 11:12 - Nov 12 by Scotia
Check out page 2 of this thread, it has been discussed. It does cause those issues, far moreso than vaccination.
Oh OK that's interesting, I'm always open to listen to both sides of the coin as you have to be to get a positive perspective. I will however state that in my experience, out of the many people I know that have had Covid or tested positive for covid, only ones to suffer from either of Myocarditis or pericarditis have been vaccinated. I'd be interested to know if any of us know someone who was unvaccinated had Covid and then suffered from a heart condition as a result.
0
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 12:23 - Nov 12 with 677 views
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 11:49 - Nov 12 by mangohilljack
Oh OK that's interesting, I'm always open to listen to both sides of the coin as you have to be to get a positive perspective. I will however state that in my experience, out of the many people I know that have had Covid or tested positive for covid, only ones to suffer from either of Myocarditis or pericarditis have been vaccinated. I'd be interested to know if any of us know someone who was unvaccinated had Covid and then suffered from a heart condition as a result.
I don't know anyone who is aware that they've had it through either infection or vaccination. But only a minority may develop it, so that's not a surprise, 6% roughly post infection and 0.1% after vaccination.
0
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 14:16 - Nov 12 with 658 views
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 14:32 - Nov 9 by A_Fans_Dad
You obviously suffer with the same kind of reading comprehension as scotia. Quote "Inpatient myocarditis and pericarditis diagnoses were retrieved from day 10 after positive PCR" From day 10 onwards not up to day 10. Quote "Follow-up was censored on 28 February 2021, with minimum observation of 18 days." Therefore a minimum of 10 to 28 days after tesing. No, I don't believe in PCR as a diagnostic, but they all do. You can only accept what they decide to use.
Of course the majority of post Vaccination cardiac-related sequelae do emerge within 10 days.
You do understand that the paper actually says there is a risk in acute infection? There are much larger studies that show the long term effects not in a Mickey Mouse MDPI journal too.
Just to be clear clinical Covid has about a 15 fold increase in myocarditis incidence over non-infected. The risk of post vaccination myocarditis is about double. The rate is myocarditis in vaccinated individuals who get infected is still around a quarter of the rate in unvaccinated infected.
To be doubly clear. Whilst neutralising antibody drops off, protection against severe disease remains high as there is strong induction of immunological memory by vaccination. That the omicron peak has already subsided is almost certainly due to a now highly immune population. Less disease and considerable protection against hospitalisation.
0
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 17:51 - Nov 12 with 637 views
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 14:16 - Nov 12 by Sandanista
You do understand that the paper actually says there is a risk in acute infection? There are much larger studies that show the long term effects not in a Mickey Mouse MDPI journal too.
Just to be clear clinical Covid has about a 15 fold increase in myocarditis incidence over non-infected. The risk of post vaccination myocarditis is about double. The rate is myocarditis in vaccinated individuals who get infected is still around a quarter of the rate in unvaccinated infected.
To be doubly clear. Whilst neutralising antibody drops off, protection against severe disease remains high as there is strong induction of immunological memory by vaccination. That the omicron peak has already subsided is almost certainly due to a now highly immune population. Less disease and considerable protection against hospitalisation.
He understands what suits him. That's it.
0
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 18:39 - Nov 12 with 622 views
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 14:16 - Nov 12 by Sandanista
You do understand that the paper actually says there is a risk in acute infection? There are much larger studies that show the long term effects not in a Mickey Mouse MDPI journal too.
Just to be clear clinical Covid has about a 15 fold increase in myocarditis incidence over non-infected. The risk of post vaccination myocarditis is about double. The rate is myocarditis in vaccinated individuals who get infected is still around a quarter of the rate in unvaccinated infected.
To be doubly clear. Whilst neutralising antibody drops off, protection against severe disease remains high as there is strong induction of immunological memory by vaccination. That the omicron peak has already subsided is almost certainly due to a now highly immune population. Less disease and considerable protection against hospitalisation.
Quote "And that paper only looks at 10 days post PCR positive." True or False?
You jumped in with an incorrect statement and cannot admit to being wrong and change the subject, exactly the same as in the past.
Talking of cherry picking we now have this statement "That the omicron peak has already subsided is almost certainly due to a now highly immune population."
How long was the original COVID19 peak to very low daily counts? When there was no vaccine. How long was the Alpha peak to very low daily counts? During the vaccine introduction. How long was the Delta peak to very low daily counts? After 7 months of vaccination. How long was the Omicron peak to very low daily counts? After 12 months of vaccination.
0
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 19:09 - Nov 12 with 616 views
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 19:09 - Nov 12 by 1462jack
You a GP or doctor ? Not that it matters mind just wondering
No I'm not, but I do have a scientific background.
I think it does matter, its important only listen to people who know what they are talking about or will at least admit when they don't in these circumstances.
I know BS when I hear it and this anti vax stuff is all BS. Genuinely it's all BS.
0
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 19:34 - Nov 12 with 601 views
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 18:39 - Nov 12 by A_Fans_Dad
Quote "And that paper only looks at 10 days post PCR positive." True or False?
You jumped in with an incorrect statement and cannot admit to being wrong and change the subject, exactly the same as in the past.
Talking of cherry picking we now have this statement "That the omicron peak has already subsided is almost certainly due to a now highly immune population."
How long was the original COVID19 peak to very low daily counts? When there was no vaccine. How long was the Alpha peak to very low daily counts? During the vaccine introduction. How long was the Delta peak to very low daily counts? After 7 months of vaccination. How long was the Omicron peak to very low daily counts? After 12 months of vaccination.
Isn't that post cherry picking in itself though?
Have you forgotten about lockdowns?
0
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 19:41 - Nov 12 with 596 views
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 14:16 - Nov 12 by Sandanista
You do understand that the paper actually says there is a risk in acute infection? There are much larger studies that show the long term effects not in a Mickey Mouse MDPI journal too.
Just to be clear clinical Covid has about a 15 fold increase in myocarditis incidence over non-infected. The risk of post vaccination myocarditis is about double. The rate is myocarditis in vaccinated individuals who get infected is still around a quarter of the rate in unvaccinated infected.
To be doubly clear. Whilst neutralising antibody drops off, protection against severe disease remains high as there is strong induction of immunological memory by vaccination. That the omicron peak has already subsided is almost certainly due to a now highly immune population. Less disease and considerable protection against hospitalisation.
All the cases I’m aware of are linked to Covid, generally it’s youngsters and strenuous exercise seems to play part.
0
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 19:59 - Nov 12 with 586 views
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 18:39 - Nov 12 by A_Fans_Dad
Quote "And that paper only looks at 10 days post PCR positive." True or False?
You jumped in with an incorrect statement and cannot admit to being wrong and change the subject, exactly the same as in the past.
Talking of cherry picking we now have this statement "That the omicron peak has already subsided is almost certainly due to a now highly immune population."
How long was the original COVID19 peak to very low daily counts? When there was no vaccine. How long was the Alpha peak to very low daily counts? During the vaccine introduction. How long was the Delta peak to very low daily counts? After 7 months of vaccination. How long was the Omicron peak to very low daily counts? After 12 months of vaccination.
One question.
Why are you doing this? Are you ill, a morbid ghoul or just down a conspiracy hole.
Most people agree the vaccines have been successful. Despite the omicron waves of the two sub variants , mortality is low. We are leading relatively normal lives. Just admit they are a success, and stop leading impressionable people to make poor decisions based on misrepresentations by people using the pandemic for personal gain.
And yes. I had not fully read the paper. I work. Read it today and it’s a crap paper in a crappy near-predatory journal .
0
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 20:05 - Nov 12 with 580 views
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 19:59 - Nov 12 by Sandanista
One question.
Why are you doing this? Are you ill, a morbid ghoul or just down a conspiracy hole.
Most people agree the vaccines have been successful. Despite the omicron waves of the two sub variants , mortality is low. We are leading relatively normal lives. Just admit they are a success, and stop leading impressionable people to make poor decisions based on misrepresentations by people using the pandemic for personal gain.
And yes. I had not fully read the paper. I work. Read it today and it’s a crap paper in a crappy near-predatory journal .
Most people agree the vaccines have been successful.
When you say most people, what exactly do you mean? Because that's not the impression I get.
More like what a load of bollo*, and that's coming from people who have taken the vax, deep down they knew they were suckered.
libera nos a malo
0
Dr John Campbell : Must watch on 20:10 - Nov 12 with 575 views
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
