It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WHO monitoring Europe COVID resurgence.. Because of steep decline in booster intakes.

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2022 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: AaarghZombies

As a keen layman I'd say that its just a preliminary study and the levels of limitations clearly shows that it is just pointing out some areas that should really be looked at properly?

It pretty much states that everything in the paper has limitations and cannot be taken as anything other than observations in a broad sense?



posted on Oct, 9 2022 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I really don't have the time to look at anymore of the fringe crackpots you seem to idolise today.

Data, use data not ducks.

Quack quack.



All studies have limitations.
Not a valid argument to present in order to defend a vaccine for which its safety hasn't been established and can cause harm as it seems to young and healthy people.


This study is inherently flawed because it doesn't factor vax uptake against comorbidity.

Or, to put it another way, this study may simply be recording that people who have a history of heart disease are more likely to get vaxxed, not that people are more likely to suffer heart disease after getting vaxxed.


This is your own unsubstantiated opinion which finds everything that doesn't fit your narrative 'flawed'. If you have any results of your own then make a rebuttal and publish them to prove that the study is flawed.

What is really flawed is your reasoning and opinions.

I note that yesterday you didn't find the same publication flawed but you argued on the basis of small numbers of deaths regardless the relative increase by 84% in the number of deaths due to heart failure.

So when did you change your mind and the publication became suddenly 'flawed'?
edit on 9-10-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2022 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3



Again the last paragraph is a reflection of your own opinion which is unsubstantiated as usual. No evidence given other than your opinion


Again?

You seem to think that I've said this before.

But, of course, it's not merely my opinion. It's demonstratable science.

Some people will feel a little nauseous after getting a vaccine, but prolonged periods of vomiting as you are describing are not a known side effect of either the flu shot or the covid vax.

Anxiety is however known to cause vomiting Link

I'd say that having someone like you fill somebody's head with doom porn could very well cause anxiety.


There are unsubstantiated claims in regards to the vaccine adverse and serious adverse reactions. All I see is vaccine apology and denialism of the fact they these vaccines are not safe as they haven't been proven to be safe.


Check the link in the comment, and in my signature. I've substantiated everything.

It's statistically more likely that you scared somebody badly enough that they suffered anxiety than the vax causing this.


You need to provide everything here in these threads just as everyone else does and not demanding that we see your signature.

You haven't substantiated anything by the way. You are dismissing scientific peer publications which you call them flawed as the results don't fit your narratives.

I recall Dr Malhotra who in his interviews was talking about the tobacco industry long time ago which was vehemently defending that smoking was good and all heart problems and heart attacks were caused by anxiety and stress!!! Nothing was caused from smoking...



posted on Oct, 9 2022 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I really don't have the time to look at anymore of the fringe crackpots you seem to idolise today.

Data, use data not ducks.

Quack quack.



I see you are unable to defend your position and narrative and you employed the usual tactics of calling well known and decent scientists as crackpots and quacks, such as Dr Malhotra and Dr Ladapo.

I wonder whether who is more qualified to speak about matters, you or them?

I notice you are making fun of scientists as 'quack quack'. Surely these are great arguments and incredibly convincing.

Another very early win for me as it seems.

edit on 9-10-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2022 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Asmodeus3

We've had this conversation before.

You don't get to decide who "won" an argument just because you want to. Every time you do that it make you look like a moron.

I don't think you are a moron, just misguided but others seeing you using childish tactics may not feel the same.



posted on Oct, 9 2022 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: AaarghZombies

As a keen layman I'd say that its just a preliminary study and the levels of limitations clearly shows that it is just pointing out some areas that should really be looked at properly?

It pretty much states that everything in the paper has limitations and cannot be taken as anything other than observations in a broad sense?


There has already been a detailed study into the effect of the vax on the heart in Israel.

It concluded that there was a 1 in 5000 chance of mild inflammation requiring bedrest and a 1 in 50,000 chance of more serious inflammation requiring intervention. Mostly only with young men, and mostly only in the first week after the vax

Unless you have an existing heart condition, such as an enlarged heart, it's very unlikely to kill you.

See my signature for links.

The OPs study say that there is an increase of 85 percent, but that's 85 of something that's barely a thing. 85 increase of zippo is still zippo.



posted on Oct, 9 2022 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Asmodeus3




You need to provide everything here in these threads just as everyone else does and not demanding that we see your signature.


The links substantiating what I'm saying are IN my signature.



You haven't substantiated anything by the way.


Sources are in my signature.



You are dismissing scientific peer publications


It's not a peer review paper. It's an internal study by the FDH. It's not been subjected to external review or rigor.



You are dismissing scientific peer publications which you call them flawed as the results don't fit your narratives.


If you'd actually read the study you'd know that the study itself raises these issues. So, I'm merely telling you what you should have read.



I recall Dr Malhotra who in his interviews was talking about the tobacco industry long time ago which was vehemently defending that smoking was good and all heart problems and heart attacks were caused by anxiety and stress!!! Nothing was caused from smoking...


So, his credibility is ... shakey?



posted on Oct, 9 2022 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3




You need to provide everything here in these threads just as everyone else does and not demanding that we see your signature.


The links substantiating what I'm saying are IN my signature.



You haven't substantiated anything by the way.


Sources are in my signature.



You are dismissing scientific peer publications


It's not a peer review paper. It's an internal study by the FDH. It's not been subjected to external review or rigor.



You are dismissing scientific peer publications which you call them flawed as the results don't fit your narratives.


If you'd actually read the study you'd know that the study itself raises these issues. So, I'm merely telling you what you should have read.



I recall Dr Malhotra who in his interviews was talking about the tobacco industry long time ago which was vehemently defending that smoking was good and all heart problems and heart attacks were caused by anxiety and stress!!! Nothing was caused from smoking...


So, his credibility is ... shakey?



Nothing further to your explanations as the same unsubstantiated arguments. You are dismissing scientific publications as flawed because they don't fit your narrative. The one by Dr Malhotra is a peer reviewed publication by the way. The one by Dr Ladapo has been published in the Florida Department of Health Bulletin (far from being a flawed study as you claimed)

You haven't substantiated anything today as in most cases I have seen you writing. Most of it is vaccine apology and denialism of facts because they are not in line with your beliefs.

If you have evidence that these studies are flawed, something that you didn't claim yesterday, then publish your own research and show that they are indeed flawed.

It was the Tobacco industry which was vehemently defending that tobacco wasn't the cause of heart disease and/or heart attacks but anxiety and stress. Just as you do here defending the vaccines and your ideology and blame anxiety, stress and other issue, and not the vaccine...



posted on Oct, 9 2022 @ 09:45 AM
link   
TextJust as you do here defending the vaccines and your ideology and blame anxiety, stress and other issue, and not the vaccine...

This is just classic on their part:" I am sorry ma'am, but your constant jerking and seizing, inability to sleep, and constant headache is just your anxiety. If you weren't in such poor mental health, this wouldn't be happening to you."



posted on Oct, 9 2022 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: MaxxAction
TextJust as you do here defending the vaccines and your ideology and blame anxiety, stress and other issue, and not the vaccine...

This is just classic on their part:" I am sorry ma'am, but your constant jerking and seizing, inability to sleep, and constant headache is just your anxiety. If you weren't in such poor mental health, this wouldn't be happening to you."


Dr Malhotra in one of his interviews reminded the audience of the same rhetoric employed by the tobacco industry in relation to smoking! It wasn't smoking they was causing heart disease but...stress and anxiety! As it was claimed by the tobacco industry.

Here and according to other members the vaccine doesn't cause any health issues. It is just anxiety and stress. The boosters should be taken according to them as there are no issues, it's all in the mind...

Some of the studies provided have suddenly become flawed and the scientists who published them are not charlatans, crackpots and quacks...



posted on Oct, 9 2022 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Asmodeus3

A couple of people in this video:

www.conservativewoman.co.uk...-6001578431

Flat out said that medical "professionals" told them is was all in their head. Can't work, can't eat, can't walk more than 20 yards without your heart rate hitting 170? All in your head. #ing POS murderous scumbags.



posted on Oct, 9 2022 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I really don't have the time to look at anymore of the fringe crackpots you seem to idolise today.

Data, use data not ducks.

Quack quack.



All studies have limitations.
Not a valid argument to present in order to defend a vaccine for which its safety hasn't been established and can cause harm as it seems to young and healthy people.


This study is inherently flawed because it doesn't factor vax uptake against comorbidity.

Or, to put it another way, this study may simply be recording that people who have a history of heart disease are more likely to get vaxxed, not that people are more likely to suffer heart disease after getting vaxxed.


Very unlikely that the 18-39 age group has issues with heart disease. This is one of the groups you don't expect much of heart and lung diseases. So again, not really, your argument isn't logical.

And you have claimed that the study doesn't indicate that people are more likely to suffer heart disease after getting vaxxed but this is false as

content.govdelivery.com...


This analysis found that there is an 84% increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males 18-39 years old within 28 days following mRNA vaccination. With a high level of global immunity to COVID-19, the benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in this age group. Non-mRNA vaccines were not found to have these increase



It looks like what you have claimed is false as the increase in cardiac related deaths recorded within 28 following mRNA vaccination.

In the sand article: Any benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this high risk of heart failure and subsequent death.

Vaccine apologetics and complete disregard of facts as well as denialism cannot be used to promote boosters and further boosters I am afraid. If anything the opposite has happened.



posted on Oct, 9 2022 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Beautiful post. We need to continue to focus on what is important. And it isn't the evils of people in our environment pressuring us. Stand tall in faith and commitment.

On topic, it shows how desperate and out of the loop the elite are. They think the majority still care and are concerned about their silly virus. Most, MOST PEOPLE are so over it.



posted on Oct, 9 2022 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: AaarghZombies

As a keen layman I'd say that its just a preliminary study and the levels of limitations clearly shows that it is just pointing out some areas that should really be looked at properly?

It pretty much states that everything in the paper has limitations and cannot be taken as anything other than observations in a broad sense?

.

So you admit you are a keen layman (nothing wrong with this) but at the same time you support without much evidence the vaccines are safe and effective and of course you support and encourage boosters (topic of this discussion) and even further vaccinations without having understood what vaccine safety means and how it is established.

At the same time, and given your admission as to the lack of understanding and knowledge of how research works and how it is conducted, you have accused a range of scientists as being charlatans, crackpots and quacks. And of course I am referring to Dr Malhorta who certainly isn't a layman, Dr Ladapo who is the Surgeon General of the State of Florida, and yesterday Kary Mullis who was the inventor of PCR and got the Nobel Prize for it.

All these because their arguments and research as well data and studies don't fit your narrative and understanding. However by your own admission there isn't much understanding and your arguments clearly show the opposite, i.e lack of understanding of basics in science and research.

When at one hand you admit you are just a keen layman but on the other hand you go to call scientists quacks and charlatans or their research as flawed and misleading (another member added this bit) then you have lost the argument on your own. It's just self-defeating.



posted on Oct, 9 2022 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Great post Fly...

I struggle every day with where the line is.

Since I was a child, I have held a strong disdain for injustice on all levels. As a kid, I never picked on others, I wasn't mean just for the sake of being mean, because I could "feel" the scars that such behaviors leave on those who suffer them. It may sound weird, but I was gifted this by God. Sometimes it doesn't feel like a gift. Most days for the last decade or more, I feel kind of like John coffey from the green mile: "It feels like pieces of glass in my head. I’m tired of all the times I’ve wanted to help and couldn’t."

So what ends up happening is it gets too heavy sometimes, and I lash out, and say things I probably ought not, but I don't know how else to deal with it.

It comes down to trying to figure out: What is my responsibility in the world? Is it ok to hate those who hate God and all he stands for to the point where they will wholesale murder their fellow man with viruses and vaccines while they earn hundreds of thousands or millions in blood money? Is it ok to despise those who prey on, and ruin children by destroying their innocence early in life? There are plenty of other examples, but you get the drift I am sure.

On one hand, we have David, whom God said was a "Man after my own heart" who loudly proclaimed his hatred for those who hate God. And on the other, we have Jesus who is, unless I completely misunderstand, telling us we should be praying for these people.

I have not quite figured it out.



posted on Oct, 9 2022 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: AaarghZombies

As a keen layman I'd say that its just a preliminary study and the levels of limitations clearly shows that it is just pointing out some areas that should really be looked at properly?

It pretty much states that everything in the paper has limitations and cannot be taken as anything other than observations in a broad sense?

.

So you admit you are a keen layman (nothing wrong with this) but at the same time you support without much evidence the vaccines are safe and effective and of course you support and encourage boosters (topic of this discussion) and even further vaccinations without having understood what vaccine safety means and how it is established.

At the same time, and given your admission as to the lack of understanding and knowledge of how research works and how it is conducted, you have accused a range of scientists as being charlatans, crackpots and quacks. And of course I am referring to Dr Malhorta who certainly isn't a layman, Dr Ladapo who is the Surgeon General of the State of Florida, and yesterday Kary Mullis who was the inventor of PCR and got the Nobel Prize for it.

All these because their arguments and research as well data and studies don't fit your narrative and understanding. However by your own admission there isn't much understanding and your arguments clearly show the opposite, i.e lack of understanding of basics in science and research.

When at one hand you admit you are just a keen layman but on the other hand you go to call scientists quacks and charlatans or their research as flawed and misleading (another member added this bit) then you have lost the argument on your own. It's just self-defeating.


Yes, basically anyone who doesn't support the big pharma narrative is a quack.

It's the same old tactic used. And no matter who says what or publishes what, could have 87 nobel prizes, they're a quack. Surgeon general, quack. PhD, quack. Nobel prize winner, quack. Co-creator of mrna vaxx tech, quack. Anyone who questions anything that challenges that new 80 billion in revenue is surely a quack.



posted on Oct, 10 2022 @ 03:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: AaarghZombies

As a keen layman I'd say that its just a preliminary study and the levels of limitations clearly shows that it is just pointing out some areas that should really be looked at properly?


It pretty much states that everything in the paper has limitations and cannot be taken as anything other than observations in a broad sense?

.

So you admit you are a keen layman (nothing wrong with this) but at the same time you support without much evidence the vaccines are safe and effective and of course you support and encourage boosters (topic of this discussion) and even further vaccinations without having understood what vaccine safety means and how it is established.

At the same time, and given your admission as to the lack of understanding and knowledge of how research works and how it is conducted, you have accused a range of scientists as being charlatans, crackpots and quacks. And of course I am referring to Dr Malhorta who certainly isn't a layman, Dr Ladapo who is the Surgeon General of the State of Florida, and yesterday Kary Mullis who was the inventor of PCR and got the Nobel Prize for it.

All these because their arguments and research as well data and studies don't fit your narrative and understanding. However by your own admission there isn't much understanding and your arguments clearly show the opposite, i.e lack of understanding of basics in science and research.

When at one hand you admit you are just a keen layman but on the other hand you go to call scientists quacks and charlatans or their research as flawed and misleading (another member added this bit) then you have lost the argument on your own. It's just self-defeating.


Yes, basically anyone who doesn't support the big pharma narrative is a quack.

It's the same old tactic used. And no matter who says what or publishes what, could have 87 nobel prizes, they're a quack. Surgeon general, quack. PhD, quack. Nobel prize winner, quack. Co-creator of mrna vaxx tech, quack. Anyone who questions anything that challenges that new 80 billion in revenue is surely a quack.


It seems we have a lot of quacks and charlatans who have PhDs and Nobel Prizes.

Professor Luc Montagnier who got the Nobel Prize for the discovery of HIV was accused (surprise surprise) of spreading conspiracy theories in regards to the origin of SARS-CoV-2.

It's imperative pharmaceutical companies cease to exist in their current form and become state owned, transparent, and profit free. There needs to be public awareness on this.




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join