The Largest Genocide In Human History - C19 Vaccines Projected to Kill 62 Million in 2022 Worldwide

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

did you not see my links?

originally posted by: FermiParaplox
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Your first source mentions a study but does not provide its source. On top of that the title is likely misleading. Where did they get the 133x number from? Does that correspond to 1:20,000 cases vs the background? I would very much like to see the study.

And your second source concerning peer review is a conspiracy theory blog that focuses on covid, and wont even reveal the name of the author. I am sorry but that is pure hot dog water. I asked you to get educated on what peer review is and instead you just went and confirmed your biases.

In order to be published in a journal like Circulation, which is a good journal btw, you have to get your paper past peer reviewers. They arent people who work for that journal. They arent even paid. They are chosen based on their expertise and previous publications with efforts taken to make sure the panel of scientists are fairly diverse within the subject matter. Although a pain to do, most scientists will consider it an honor and use it on their resume later as well.

Peer reviewers are extremely annoying and will pick apart your research, and either outright reject you or they will ask for additional evidence/experiments (in my experience it has taken as long as a years worth of experiments and data analysis to satisfy some reviewers). They seem to take pride in destroying your research so getting something published in prestigious journals is very difficult. Things like covid will get maximum exposure/citations. Every major university in the world is using those papers, redoing the experiments, and are able to reproduce them. If someone tried to put out even a minor covid paper (in a real journal) that is incorrect you can be sure other researchers will find it and it will be retracted. You just cant hide or fake these things.

Peer review is not a perfect system, but its definitely better than taking the word of an anonymous blogger who isnt even confident enough in his own work to identify himself.

I disagree about peer review. It's used as a way for the establishment to control the literature. Also, only big pharma can afford to have these large double blind studies done and reviewed by "peers." We saw what happened with the Pfizer trials. The all cause mortality is higher in the vaccinated than unvaccinated, but they tried to use the Relative Risk with no absolute risk mentioned.

Whistle blowers have emerged to show the Pfizer trials were filled with massive data integrity issues.

And you claim substack is a "conspiracy theory site." You just showed your cards with that statement. Attempting to look discredit something by saying it's anti vaxx or conspiracy theorist is straight from the big pharma and cia play book. What site is this you are posting on now?

Substack is one of the last bastions of independent journalism. There are 10s of thousands of writers from different sides of the isle and you just blanket called it a conspiracy theory site. It's a million times more credible than big pharma funded mainstream media, doctors or scientists who sold out.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

I had to make another post because your source required it.

He is literally equating google searches with instances of myocarditis. I clicked the first "source" in his list towards the bottom and it was an antivaxxers powerpoint using twitter screenshots as his/her sources. Seriously who believes this stuff? I have never seen a more thorough application of confirmation bias in my entire life. Literally just antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists sourcing each other in some kind of weird twilight zone endless loop of disinformation.

originally posted by: FermiParaplox
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

I had to make another post because your source required it.

He is literally equating google searches with instances of myocarditis. I clicked the first "source" in his list towards the bottom and it was an antivaxxers powerpoint using twitter screenshots as his/her sources. Seriously who believes this stuff? I have never seen a more thorough application of confirmation bias in my entire life. Literally just antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists sourcing each other in some kind of weird twilight zone endless loop of disinformation.

You're failing to convince me.

Here's 1011 studies for you to debunk, showing the mrna drugs are dangerous.

I'm sure you can disprove all 1011.

link

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

what exactly do you disagree about peer review? Which step in the process I mentioned do you find problematic?

also regardless of what substack is, apparently anyone can post on it right? Because I am not talking about the platform as a whole, that link only shows eugyppius' page, and all he/she talks about is covid and the vaccine.

originally posted by: FermiParaplox
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

what exactly do you disagree about peer review? Which step in the process I mentioned do you find problematic?

also regardless of what substack is, apparently anyone can post on it right? Because I am not talking about the platform as a whole, that link only shows eugyppius' page, and all he/she talks about is covid and the vaccine.

Here's a few, this is a fraction of the 1011 that speak of myocarditis:

www.sciencedirect.com...

jamanetwork.com...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

pediatrics.aappublications.org...

www.sciencedirect.com...

www.sciencedirect.com...

www.ahajournals.org...

pediatrics.aappublications.org...


pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

www.sciencedirect.com...

www.sciencedirect.com...

www.sciencedirect.com...

www.sciencedirect.com...


www.sciencedirect.com...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

www.ahajournals.org...

media.jamanetwork.com...


jamanetwork.com...

originally posted by: FermiParaplox
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

what exactly do you disagree about peer review? Which step in the process I mentioned do you find problematic?

also regardless of what substack is, apparently anyone can post on it right? Because I am not talking about the platform as a whole, that link only shows eugyppius' page, and all he/she talks about is covid and the vaccine.

What do you mean anyone can talk? Are you saying only certain people should be allowed to talk? Sounds like an appeal to authority fallacy.


Also, what are you doing posting on this site? Have you noticed that anyone can talk and its a "conspiracy theory site"?

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

lol at the literal gish gallop attempt. Also those are all literally peer reviewed papers. Im sure you dont believe those then do you?

Just for you I looked at a few. There is literally nothing special to see, and they are all the exact normal type of studies and conclusions you would expect from the invention of ANY new drug or therapy. Did you know tylenol can kill you? Did you know benadryl can shut down your kidneys? I am sure I can provide you with a gish gallop of studies as well for any drug in the known pharma world that would scare you off of it.

and you really think im some pharma agent? lmao man I totally understand why you think the way you do. All I have done is provide nice clear information on both the virus and the vaccine from a standpoint of someone with good background knowledge on it.

Think what you want. It is obvious that nothing will change your mind. I just hope that some people read my information and that it helped.

originally posted by: FermiParaplox
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

what exactly do you disagree about peer review? Which step in the process I mentioned do you find problematic?

also regardless of what substack is, apparently anyone can post on it right? Because I am not talking about the platform as a whole, that link only shows eugyppius' page, and all he/she talks about is covid and the vaccine.

The peer review process is a barrier designed to keep out anything that challenges the establishment. Both double blind and peer review are user as a barrier. Most people fall for it and thing anything that doesn't meet this criteria means a study is worthless. I know that it depends on the quality of the study.

For example Pfizer can do all the studies it wants with massive data integrity issues and they still get their experimental drug approved as EUA while still asking got 70 years to release the trials data.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: FermiParaplox
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

what exactly do you disagree about peer review? Which step in the process I mentioned do you find problematic?

also regardless of what substack is, apparently anyone can post on it right? Because I am not talking about the platform as a whole, that link only shows eugyppius' page, and all he/she talks about is covid and the vaccine.

What do you mean anyone can talk? Are you saying only certain people should be allowed to talk? Sounds like an appeal to authority fallacy.


Also, what are you doing posting on this site? Have you noticed that anyone can talk and its a "conspiracy theory site"?

lol address my point instead of engaging in an ad hominin. I am only talking about eugyppius in this case

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: FermiParaplox
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

what exactly do you disagree about peer review? Which step in the process I mentioned do you find problematic?

also regardless of what substack is, apparently anyone can post on it right? Because I am not talking about the platform as a whole, that link only shows eugyppius' page, and all he/she talks about is covid and the vaccine.

The peer review process is a barrier designed to keep out anything that challenges the establishment. Both double blind and peer review are user as a barrier. Most people fall for it and thing anything that doesn't meet this criteria means a study is worthless. I know that it depends on the quality of the study.

For example Pfizer can do all the studies it wants with massive data integrity issues and they still get their experimental drug approved as EUA while still asking got 70 years to release the trials data.

How exactly is it a barrier for the establishment when it is made up of PEERS. I tried to explain it clearly for you earlier. The peer reviewers whose sole job is to reject or accept the paper into the journal DONT WORK FOR THE JOURNAL. They are random scientists chosen across academia that are considered experts or knowledgeable in a field related to the research being reviewed. How exactly does the establishment control this?

originally posted by: FermiParaplox
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

lol at the literal gish gallop attempt. Also those are all literally peer reviewed papers. Im sure you dont believe those then do you?

Just for you I looked at a few. There is literally nothing special to see, and they are all the exact normal type of studies and conclusions you would expect from the invention of ANY new drug or therapy. Did you know tylenol can kill you? Did you know benadryl can shut down your kidneys? I am sure I can provide you with a gish gallop of studies as well for any drug in the known pharma world that would scare you off of it.

and you really think im some pharma agent? lmao man I totally understand why you think the way you do. All I have done is provide nice clear information on both the virus and the vaccine from a standpoint of someone with good background knowledge on it.

Think what you want. It is obvious that nothing will change your mind. I just hope that some people read my information and that it helped.

You're once again using the appeal to authority fallacy.

You provided one study, and that hotez guy is questionable. Also I'm not going to buy just anything the cdc or fda puts out since those agencies have been captured. You provide one study, I provide 1011.

You have a lot of work to do if you're going to convince anyone. You haven't even scratched the surface.

Ivermectin was a known cure in April 2020 according to darpa. We didn't need a vaccine to begin with. Also you don't vaccinate during a pandemic. Thats virology 101.


There's really too much evidence, it's overwhelming.

originally posted by: FermiParaplox

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: FermiParaplox
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

what exactly do you disagree about peer review? Which step in the process I mentioned do you find problematic?

also regardless of what substack is, apparently anyone can post on it right? Because I am not talking about the platform as a whole, that link only shows eugyppius' page, and all he/she talks about is covid and the vaccine.

The peer review process is a barrier designed to keep out anything that challenges the establishment. Both double blind and peer review are user as a barrier. Most people fall for it and thing anything that doesn't meet this criteria means a study is worthless. I know that it depends on the quality of the study.

For example Pfizer can do all the studies it wants with massive data integrity issues and they still get their experimental drug approved as EUA while still asking got 70 years to release the trials data.

How exactly is it a barrier for the establishment when it is made up of PEERS. I tried to explain it clearly for you earlier. The peer reviewers whose sole job is to reject or accept the paper into the journal DONT WORK FOR THE JOURNAL. They are random scientists chosen across academia that are considered experts or knowledgeable in a field related to the research being reviewed. How exactly does the establishment control this?

Yes, peers who are all part of the establishment. The one that removes studies from publications like the dr. Mccullough study, who is the most published cardiologist in the world, and who takes away your license if you question vaccines. You aren't going to be in this group if you question the narrative.

originally posted by: [post=26334568]v1rtu0s0


You're once again using the appeal to authority fallacy.

You provided one study, and that hotez guy is questionable. Also I'm not going to buy just anything the cdc or fda puts out since those agencies have been captured. You provide one study, I provide 1011.

You have a lot of work to do if you're going to convince anyone. You haven't even scratched the surface.

Ivermectin was a known cure in April 2020 according to darpa. We didn't need a vaccine to begin with. Also you don't vaccinate during a pandemic. Thats virology 101.


There's really too much evidence, it's overwhelming.

I gave 2 studies, both in circulation which is one of the, if not, the best cardiology related research journals.

Scratching the surface of tin foil is all you need to bring the whole thing down. Your sources were very very bad and there is a reason they arent taken seriously.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: FermiParaplox

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: FermiParaplox
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

what exactly do you disagree about peer review? Which step in the process I mentioned do you find problematic?

also regardless of what substack is, apparently anyone can post on it right? Because I am not talking about the platform as a whole, that link only shows eugyppius' page, and all he/she talks about is covid and the vaccine.

The peer review process is a barrier designed to keep out anything that challenges the establishment. Both double blind and peer review are user as a barrier. Most people fall for it and thing anything that doesn't meet this criteria means a study is worthless. I know that it depends on the quality of the study.

For example Pfizer can do all the studies it wants with massive data integrity issues and they still get their experimental drug approved as EUA while still asking got 70 years to release the trials data.

How exactly is it a barrier for the establishment when it is made up of PEERS. I tried to explain it clearly for you earlier. The peer reviewers whose sole job is to reject or accept the paper into the journal DONT WORK FOR THE JOURNAL. They are random scientists chosen across academia that are considered experts or knowledgeable in a field related to the research being reviewed. How exactly does the establishment control this?

Yes, peers who are all part of the establishment. The one that removes studies from publications like the dr. Mccullough study, who is the most published cardiologist in the world, and who takes away your license if you question vaccines. You aren't going to be in this group if you question the narrative.

I just cant comprehend how you can rail and rail against peer review, and then post all of those peer reviewed articles to back up your vaccines cause cardiomyopathy claims.

originally posted by: FermiParaplox

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: FermiParaplox

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: FermiParaplox
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

what exactly do you disagree about peer review? Which step in the process I mentioned do you find problematic?

also regardless of what substack is, apparently anyone can post on it right? Because I am not talking about the platform as a whole, that link only shows eugyppius' page, and all he/she talks about is covid and the vaccine.

The peer review process is a barrier designed to keep out anything that challenges the establishment. Both double blind and peer review are user as a barrier. Most people fall for it and thing anything that doesn't meet this criteria means a study is worthless. I know that it depends on the quality of the study.

For example Pfizer can do all the studies it wants with massive data integrity issues and they still get their experimental drug approved as EUA while still asking got 70 years to release the trials data.

How exactly is it a barrier for the establishment when it is made up of PEERS. I tried to explain it clearly for you earlier. The peer reviewers whose sole job is to reject or accept the paper into the journal DONT WORK FOR THE JOURNAL. They are random scientists chosen across academia that are considered experts or knowledgeable in a field related to the research being reviewed. How exactly does the establishment control this?

Yes, peers who are all part of the establishment. The one that removes studies from publications like the dr. Mccullough study, who is the most published cardiologist in the world, and who takes away your license if you question vaccines. You aren't going to be in this group if you question the narrative.

I just cant comprehend how you can rail and rail against peer review, and then post all of those peer reviewed articles to back up your vaccines cause cardiomyopathy claims.

The vaccine isn't working. There are more covid deaths in 2021 than 2020, and that's with half the world vaccinated and a weaker strain. Look at the most vaccinated countries in the world like Israel, they have the highest case numbers now.

Your sources are better than mine argument doesn't matter when we can see what happening in the world.
It turns out my weak sources hold up in the real world. Holding back repurposed drugs like ivermectin to force a vaccine that doesn't work to make big phama richer killed a lot of people.

Peter Hotez is about the biggest # I can imagine.

I just cant comprehend how you can rail and rail against peer review, and then post all of those peer reviewed articles to back up your vaccines cause cardiomyopathy claims.

The vaccine isn't working. There are more covid deaths in 2021 than 2020, and that's with half the world vaccinated and a weaker strain. Look at the most vaccinated countries in the world like Israel, they have the highest case numbers now.

Your sources are better than mine argument doesn't matter when we can see what happening in the world.
It turns out my weak sources hold up in the real world. Holding back repurposed drugs like ivermectin to force a vaccine that doesn't work to make big phama richer killed a lot of people.

Peter Hotez is about the biggest # I can imagine.

Well you quoted me but you didnt address my post in any shape or form. Do you believe in peer review or not? If you dont then why are you posting peer reviewed articles as your sources?

Also the vaccine doesnt work? The vast majority of hospitalizations and deaths are among the unvaccinated. This is an already cemented fact. source

originally posted by: FermiParaplox

I just cant comprehend how you can rail and rail against peer review, and then post all of those peer reviewed articles to back up your vaccines cause cardiomyopathy claims.

The vaccine isn't working. There are more covid deaths in 2021 than 2020, and that's with half the world vaccinated and a weaker strain. Look at the most vaccinated countries in the world like Israel, they have the highest case numbers now.

Your sources are better than mine argument doesn't matter when we can see what happening in the world.
It turns out my weak sources hold up in the real world. Holding back repurposed drugs like ivermectin to force a vaccine that doesn't work to make big phama richer killed a lot of people.

Peter Hotez is about the biggest # I can imagine.

Well you quoted me but you didnt address my post in any shape or form. Do you believe in peer review or not? If you dont then why are you posting peer reviewed articles as your sources?

Also the vaccine doesnt work? The vast majority of hospitalizations and deaths are among the unvaccinated. This is an already cemented fact. source

Yes, using the bill gates owned website to show the official data. Im sure none of those deaths were people who died WITH covid and not FROM covid. Unfortunately this virus wouldn't have been an issue if early treatments were allowed from the start.

ONS data shows vaccinated children are 52x more likely to die than unvaccinated children.

link

Those who worked to keep early treatments hidden, will face manslaughter charges, before the statute of limitations for charging them expires.

originally posted by: FermiParaplox

I just cant comprehend how you can rail and rail against peer review, and then post all of those peer reviewed articles to back up your vaccines cause cardiomyopathy claims.

The vaccine isn't working. There are more covid deaths in 2021 than 2020, and that's with half the world vaccinated and a weaker strain. Look at the most vaccinated countries in the world like Israel, they have the highest case numbers now.

Your sources are better than mine argument doesn't matter when we can see what happening in the world.
It turns out my weak sources hold up in the real world. Holding back repurposed drugs like ivermectin to force a vaccine that doesn't work to make big phama richer killed a lot of people.

Peter Hotez is about the biggest # I can imagine.

Well you quoted me but you didnt address my post in any shape or form. Do you believe in peer review or not? If you dont then why are you posting peer reviewed articles as your sources?

Also the vaccine doesnt work? The vast majority of hospitalizations and deaths are among the unvaccinated. This is an already cemented fact. source

Peer review is fine but saying it's the only way to justify if a study has credibility is not.


Also the study is:

link