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.

 

New Peer Reviewed Study Shows 94% Of Vaxxt Have Significant Blood Abnormalities

page: 2
46
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2022 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

So what is your opinion on the authors of the paper?

Do you put your trust in the work of a dentist and an acupuncturist in what has to be said is a journal of dubious nature?



posted on Oct, 10 2022 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: AaarghZombies


The people peer reviewing it are either fake or are known anti vaxxers.

Here's a thorough debunk link

"Come on man!" Your link goes to a discussion forum. By your own measure, it's worthless as a source. Their whole purpose for being is to debate topics they know little to nothing about. They aren't experts at anything. They certainly aren't known or recognized experts.

Metabunk.org is dedicated to the art and pastime of honest, polite, scientific investigating of unusual claims. It is primarily a discussion forum, however the focus is on providing concise useful resources, and attempting to avoid repetitive debate and arguments.

I'm not saying their information in their thread is wrong, but by the measure you provided, they aren't to be taken seriously because they don't agree with what I want to believe.




Did you read the debunk?

They ripped it to shreds.

From their own website

"This issue invites papers for peer-review addressing the known and expected consequences of the ongoing COVID-19 genetic experiments aiming to get nucleated cells in recipients of the EUA “vaccines” to manufacture the COVID spike protein. Scientific research into the mRNA code of the spike protein itself and studies of protocols for alleviating the so-called “side effects” of the experimental ingredients being injected into billions of people during of the ongoing world-wide experiments are also welcomed."


You don't have peer review websites courting partisan articles.

Plus most of the content is gibberish



posted on Oct, 10 2022 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: AaarghZombies

So it's an anti vax site pretending to be a peer reviewed journal.



posted on Oct, 10 2022 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: AaarghZombies
C'mon Z. You didn't even read my post, did you? At the very least, you missed my main point.

Be consistent.

Either the information given is good or bad on its own merits, regardless of the source.

OR

The information is good or bad based on what you want to believe and the source.

You can't have it both ways. Actually, I guess you can, but I'm not going to take you seriously.



posted on Oct, 10 2022 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: AaarghZombies

So it's an anti vax site pretending to be a peer reviewed journal.


Wait what????

So t

So these aren't legitimate research papers?


What is in the so-called COVID-19 “Vaccines”? Part 1: Evidence of a Global Crime Against Humanity


Or


Cyborgs R Us: The Bio-Nano Panopticon of Injected Bodies




Shocked I am, shocked.





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



posted on Oct, 10 2022 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: AaarghZombies
C'mon Z. You didn't even read my post, did you? At the very least, you missed my main point.

Be consistent.

Either the information given is good or bad on its own merits, regardless of the source.

OR

The information is good or bad based on what you want to believe and the source.

You can't have it both ways. Actually, I guess you can, but I'm not going to take you seriously.


The editor is Christopher Shaw.

His name should be familiar to you. He's the man who claimed that aluminium in vaxes was causing autism in kids.

This isn't a peer review site, the OP was taken in by a hoax.



posted on Oct, 10 2022 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: AaarghZombies

So it's an anti vax site pretending to be a peer reviewed journal.


Wait what????

So this these aren't legitimate research papers?


What is in the so-called COVID-19 “Vaccines”? Part 1: Evidence of a Global Crime Against Humanity


Or


Cyborgs R Us: The Bio-Nano Panopticon of Injected Bodies




Shocked I am, shocked.






The OP didn't do any due diligence before posting the link.

I'm shocked.



posted on Oct, 10 2022 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Klassified

So what is your opinion on the authors of the paper?

Do you put your trust in the work of a dentist and an acupuncturist in what has to be said is a journal of dubious nature?

Honestly, I trust zero sources. What I look for are consistencies and inconsistencies over time from all sources. Even known propaganda outlets are often like a clock stuck at a given time. They can't help it.

My opinion is that the evidence keeps piling up, and if it keeps piling up, the preponderance of it will no longer be denied.


+1 more 
posted on Oct, 10 2022 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Just think. If they were real vaccines, had superior efficacy and no side effects, no one would be seeing all these things happening AT ALL. Real easy science there.



posted on Oct, 10 2022 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

An issue that I keep seeing more and more is there's now a lot of very dubious "journals" that are popping up and publishing "peer reviewed studies and articles.

I'm pretty sure that you and me could spend an afternoon and about 30 quid and set up something that had all of the qualifications to look like and claim to be a peer reviewed journal.

Before the internet explosion these were all published in hard copy but now anyone can do it for almost no time or money.

Real scientists know what's what but us ordinary folk don't have the experience to spot a shifty one at 600 yards.



posted on Oct, 10 2022 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific



An issue that I keep seeing more and more is there's now a lot of very dubious "journals" that are popping up and publishing "peer reviewed studies and articles.

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals



posted on Oct, 10 2022 @ 08:44 AM
link   
I'm not going to comment on the validity or not of the link, but I did go searching for the authors of the said cited paper, seemed like a logical thing to do.
So here's Riccardo Benzi Cipelli's Linkedin page...
Ricardo Cipelli
As to Franco Giovannini, here is a video presentation by him conducting and explaining the tests. It's Bitchute, but he also has his own private clinic in Mantova, Italy.
video presentation of how findings were made.
Finally, as to Gianpaolo Pisano, MD, OHNS, I could only find a 7 minute interview in Italian with no english translation so I have no idea what was being discussed.
Rainbows
Jane



posted on Oct, 10 2022 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: AaarghZombies


The people peer reviewing it are either fake or are known anti vaxxers.

Here's a thorough debunk link

"Come on man!" Your link goes to a discussion forum. By your own measure, it's worthless as a source. Their whole purpose for being is to debate topics they know little to nothing about. They aren't experts at anything. They certainly aren't known or recognized experts.

Metabunk.org is dedicated to the art and pastime of honest, polite, scientific investigating of unusual claims. It is primarily a discussion forum, however the focus is on providing concise useful resources, and attempting to avoid repetitive debate and arguments.

I'm not saying the information in their thread is wrong, but by the measure you provided, they aren't to be taken seriously because they don't agree with what I want to believe.




They do the same thing with anecdotes.

If you've got an anecdote of someone who got the vaccine and got sick from it, or got the vaccine and still died from Covid:

"That's just anecdotal, that doesn't mean anything! Don't you know anything about sample size? You're anti-science! Scientific method, double-blind, I-Heart-Big-Pharma blah blah blah!!!"

Literally the next day they'll come at you with an anecdotal story of someone they know who didn't get vaccinated and died of Covid. And they know they're being hypocrites, they just think it's okay since they're on the right "side."

You can't have a serious discussion with these kinds of people.



posted on Oct, 10 2022 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: ScepticScot

An issue that I keep seeing more and more is there's now a lot of very dubious "journals" that are popping up and publishing "peer reviewed studies and articles.

I'm pretty sure that you and me could spend an afternoon and about 30 quid and set up something that had all of the qualifications to look like and claim to be a peer reviewed journal.

Before the internet explosion these were all published in hard copy but now anyone can do it for almost no time or money.

Real scientists know what's what but us ordinary folk don't have the experience to spot a shifty one at 600 yards.


What's worse, junk science gets through peer review and into "reputable" journals. As Klassified noted, the whole process is broken to begin with.



posted on Oct, 10 2022 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: slatesteam

No, not bombastic at all! Solid truth well stated.



posted on Oct, 10 2022 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Firstly, I checked and the journal source is an astroturfing site that publishes only anti-vax and COVID conspiracy topics.

Secondly, look at the credentials of the authors.

Thirdly, with even these credentials, why are they using free public e-mail addresses rather than academic, or official medical institution ones?

And, upon reading the non-peer-reviewed paper, it appears that it is based upon only 4 'cherry picked' cases.

In all cases, the differences could easily be explained by inadequately cleaned, re-used slides and/or slip covers, contamination of the samples, and cellular degradation of samples that were kept too long before analysis.

Similar errors were used in the hypothesis that there was a "Morgellons Disease", and the photographic results look very similar to ones used to promote the theory that Morgellons actually existed.

edit on 10/10/2022 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2022 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

Exactly. A fact will be a fact no matter where you find it; the challenge is winnowing out the facts.



posted on Oct, 10 2022 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific


Would the fact that one of the authors of the paper is a dentist and another is an acupuncturist explain the issues you see in the paper?

No.

Data is data, science is science, reality is reality, no matter who says it is. Some people really need to overcome this cult of personality that seems to be overtaking the scientific world.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 10 2022 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Your link has to be the biggest piece of garbage I have seen in a while. It's pure propaganda. Here's a point-by-point breakdown of their "points":
  • The URL is misleading: and that is completely irrelevant. What does the location of the server on which data is contained have to do with the veracity of the data?

  • No reputable experts authored the paper: This is the biggest load of hogwash I have ever heard, and it is an argument that makes me want to immediately go somewhere else. The very idea that information cannot be true unless some faceless government agency or university funds the study is the very antithesis of science.

  • No reputable expert peer review found: Two points here: just because something is not found, it does not mean that something does not exist (there is a peer review of this paper in this very thread, by me), and the word "reputable" is used to do the exact same thing as the previous two points try to do: examine the veracity of data based not on the actual veracity of the data, but on where it is and who said it.

  • No new research or data: Yes, there is. That is an out-and-out lie. The paper specifies what research was conducted and on whom under what conditions, quite clearly.

  • Rehash of existing anti-vax misinformation gambits: The fact that a paper contains information that has appeared before is about as far from a condemnation of the the stated information as one can get. It's called "corroboration" in actual scientific circles, and is seen as evidence of data veracity. Truth is not dependent on your opinion, my opinion, a blogger's opinion, or anyone else's opinion, no matter how desperately you want it to be so.
I'll add one more:

Any further antibunk you can provide would be greatly appreciated. As this paper grows in popularity I think a centralized thread debunking its claims is useful.
That is a crystal clear statement that the purpose of this so-called "debunking" is not to determine the veracity of the data or the conclusions, but to disprove the paper in any way possible.

You have had for some time now a series of links in your signature. I don't bother reading them, for the simple reason that you place so much faith in sites like this one. I have better things to do with my time than try to follow your own "Gish-galloping" every time a scientist publishes information your own ill-informed belief system does not agree with.

That's why no one pays you any attention.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 10 2022 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: nonspecific


Would the fact that one of the authors of the paper is a dentist and another is an acupuncturist explain the issues you see in the paper?

No.

Data is data, science is science, reality is reality, no matter who says it is. Some people really need to overcome this cult of personality that seems to be overtaking the scientific world.

TheRedneck


You wouldn't go to a dentist to have the transmission on your truck fixed, and you wouldn't go to an auto dealership to have a retainer fitted.

When it comes to science some things can be very compartmentalized, so being an expert in one field doesn't necessarily make you an authority in another. Though it could give you enough knowledge of the type of language to use to sound authoritative to people who don't understand the topic enough to know better.

Hypothetically speaking, I could sit here and give do a plausible sounding bitchute on how quantum spin can be used to demonstrate hyperdimenionalisty, and you'd need to be studying physics at a high level and do a lot of mental arithmetic very quickly to realize that I am using completely the wrong formula to give you a gibberish answer.

I could hypothetically do the same with any number of subject based on the fact that I have a background that allows me to emulate the language and style used, and you'd need to know the subject to realize that I was making it up as I went along.

What we have here with this document is someone copying and pasting a lot of text about the techniques used, and using genuine citations for those techniques, and then fitting gibberish answers around them that claim that pictures show things that they don't or that conclusions can be reached that can't be supported by the data.

This is the equivalent of me citing a dozen air accident investigations, and methodology used, and then tacking on a picture of the wreckage of random airline accident debris and claiming that it showed that MA370 was hit by a stray US missile from a wargame off of the coast of Korea.

I've blinded you with science and "data", and then inserted a bogus conclusion on to it that's completely made up.




top topics



 
46
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join