https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568997223000216#:~:text=Clinical%20features%20of%20the%20autoimmune,%2C%20and%2For%20vascular%20manifestations We are finally discussing the dangers of adjuvants in vaccines. This paper is terrific. It goes through each common vaccine adjuvant and lists out the physical health side effects associated with them.
OK. I'll admit from the get-go I simply scanned this as it's extremely anal and I've made my conclusions from simply reading the highlights and the abstract and glancing at the support. The support was enough to know these guys did an excellent job backing up their presentation. In other words, I did a quick review, not an audit.
That said, the Overseer in me immediately saw THREE scenarios:
1) The tested "vaccine", i.e. the ITEM
2) The tested ITEM with only adjuvants - i.e. WITHOUT the ITEM, adjuvants only
3) The placebo
actually, there is #4, the CONTROL group, but we can destroy them without #4.
You show ANY normal Fourth Grader the raw numbers of these three tests and they will immediately be able to sort them in order of importance. And one might even question why isn't this just #1 vs #3.
The problem is: we now understand (from the steep learning curve of 2020-2) that the testers
first, are reticent to give raw data.
Second, we found they 'exclude' some raw data, i.e. falsify the test.
Thirdly, they compare things which are not comparable, e.g. #1 and #2 without #3. Remember, they never (willingly or ever) give us the #2 data!
My big issue is: HOW CAN WE EVEN ATTEMPT TO BROACH THIS SUBJECT TO THE MINDS THAT ARE RUSTED SHUT?????
I'm actively entertaining a hypothesis that one of the symptoms of post-jab syndrome is blindness to ANY comments or words which do not validate their faithful fervor in the introduction of material into their bodies (or their children) by artificial methods.
I do not make this hypothesis lightly. My wife, children, her entire side of relations are inimical to the very thought there might be something rotting in Denmark and I live with them.
Fortunately, I have us "deniers" on the internet and 4 of my 6 siblings solidly on the side of critical thought and analysis.
So many generations of people have been brainwashed about the safe and effective scenario and have not been allowed to question it that it is engrained in their minds, not allowing them to be open minded enough to hear anything else, pure indoctrination.
Joe, I too live with "True Believers". It took a fairly serious and obvious vaccine injury to convince me that vaccines are not the miracles they are purported to be. My theory is that most folks do not want to be proved wrong. No one want to admit that someone got one over on them. I have observed people go to absurd lengths to avoid admitting being taken advantage of. Con Men count on this. I have no idea how to get through to such people. I too am married to someone in the cult of the vaccine. I have had to make my peace with that. Not easy.
The article makes it plain that "science" is rarely pure. Faith in the scientific process is one thing. Faith in scientists is quite another. A white lab coat does not make one a saint. Scientists are just people. People have bias and faults. As this paper points out, the vaccines studies were deeply flawed and designed to produce a specific result. In spite of the truth.
To your comment that 'Scientists are just people'.
I've met a few over the years, mostly in professional settings.
The actual scientists are generally removed from the public papers as most of them are excellent researchers and testers, but are not comfortable with people.
Having listened to quite a few (mostly very dry) presentations as a sound tech, I wonder if these scientists, who do all the actual grunt work, ever see, much less are named by the person(s) named on the white paper, or have read it.
My opinion is the actual scientists are quite honest. They are paid to do a job and move on to the next. In fact, I would go so far as to speculate most have no idea how their studies get published, and further, even if they found out, are powerless to do anything about it. The real massaging happens at a higher level.
QED: raw data is paramount to any study.
ps. Sorry we're in similar situations. Communication keeps me sane. None of us are the Lone Ranger, thanks to the internet.
My example of scientists with an agenda would be those English Blokes that came up with the Global Warming Hockey Stick buffoonery. Then they denied access to their data and were finally caught by their e-mails conspiring to delete their made up numbers. What does the "e" in e-mail stand for? Evidence!
I don't doubt that at all. Bobby Kennedy's book is excellent on this topic. No randomized, BLINDED, clinical trials for vaccines. Yet we know that is the gold standard of truth. If vaccines receive approval without randomized trials, that tells me they are hiding some very important information. Remember, a very sick populace is good for business if you work in healthcare. BTW: that used to be the opposite. The primary goal of healthcare professionals was patient QOL. That seems to have fallen by the wayside for many (most) healthcare decision makers.
Might I add: A very sick population is easier to control than a healthy one. Easier to terrify into submission. As evidenced by the last 5 years. You are perceptive to see that institutionalized medical professionals are no longer interested in patient Quality of Life. They are interested in serving the institution. Rarely do the well being of the patient and the institution intersect.
>>Anyone still doubt that vaccines are one of the leading cause of numerous chronic health issues in our bodies?<<
Healthcare is in the business of creating and keeping REPEAT_CUSTOMERS not curing them. Curing a health issue means zero profit. Can't have that. Must make $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
to keep the for-profit HMOs firmly in business. Patients mean less than dog shit. All they want is you to keep giving them money. Period.
OK. I'll admit from the get-go I simply scanned this as it's extremely anal and I've made my conclusions from simply reading the highlights and the abstract and glancing at the support. The support was enough to know these guys did an excellent job backing up their presentation. In other words, I did a quick review, not an audit.
That said, the Overseer in me immediately saw THREE scenarios:
1) The tested "vaccine", i.e. the ITEM
2) The tested ITEM with only adjuvants - i.e. WITHOUT the ITEM, adjuvants only
3) The placebo
actually, there is #4, the CONTROL group, but we can destroy them without #4.
You show ANY normal Fourth Grader the raw numbers of these three tests and they will immediately be able to sort them in order of importance. And one might even question why isn't this just #1 vs #3.
The problem is: we now understand (from the steep learning curve of 2020-2) that the testers
first, are reticent to give raw data.
Second, we found they 'exclude' some raw data, i.e. falsify the test.
Thirdly, they compare things which are not comparable, e.g. #1 and #2 without #3. Remember, they never (willingly or ever) give us the #2 data!
My big issue is: HOW CAN WE EVEN ATTEMPT TO BROACH THIS SUBJECT TO THE MINDS THAT ARE RUSTED SHUT?????
I'm actively entertaining a hypothesis that one of the symptoms of post-jab syndrome is blindness to ANY comments or words which do not validate their faithful fervor in the introduction of material into their bodies (or their children) by artificial methods.
I do not make this hypothesis lightly. My wife, children, her entire side of relations are inimical to the very thought there might be something rotting in Denmark and I live with them.
Fortunately, I have us "deniers" on the internet and 4 of my 6 siblings solidly on the side of critical thought and analysis.
So many generations of people have been brainwashed about the safe and effective scenario and have not been allowed to question it that it is engrained in their minds, not allowing them to be open minded enough to hear anything else, pure indoctrination.
Joe, I too live with "True Believers". It took a fairly serious and obvious vaccine injury to convince me that vaccines are not the miracles they are purported to be. My theory is that most folks do not want to be proved wrong. No one want to admit that someone got one over on them. I have observed people go to absurd lengths to avoid admitting being taken advantage of. Con Men count on this. I have no idea how to get through to such people. I too am married to someone in the cult of the vaccine. I have had to make my peace with that. Not easy.
The article makes it plain that "science" is rarely pure. Faith in the scientific process is one thing. Faith in scientists is quite another. A white lab coat does not make one a saint. Scientists are just people. People have bias and faults. As this paper points out, the vaccines studies were deeply flawed and designed to produce a specific result. In spite of the truth.
Thanks for your terrific comment.
To your comment that 'Scientists are just people'.
I've met a few over the years, mostly in professional settings.
The actual scientists are generally removed from the public papers as most of them are excellent researchers and testers, but are not comfortable with people.
Having listened to quite a few (mostly very dry) presentations as a sound tech, I wonder if these scientists, who do all the actual grunt work, ever see, much less are named by the person(s) named on the white paper, or have read it.
My opinion is the actual scientists are quite honest. They are paid to do a job and move on to the next. In fact, I would go so far as to speculate most have no idea how their studies get published, and further, even if they found out, are powerless to do anything about it. The real massaging happens at a higher level.
QED: raw data is paramount to any study.
ps. Sorry we're in similar situations. Communication keeps me sane. None of us are the Lone Ranger, thanks to the internet.
My example of scientists with an agenda would be those English Blokes that came up with the Global Warming Hockey Stick buffoonery. Then they denied access to their data and were finally caught by their e-mails conspiring to delete their made up numbers. What does the "e" in e-mail stand for? Evidence!
Absolutely!
Look how high up the chain those guys are...
More political bureaucrat than scientist.
Just like their fake evidence!
I don't doubt that at all. Bobby Kennedy's book is excellent on this topic. No randomized, BLINDED, clinical trials for vaccines. Yet we know that is the gold standard of truth. If vaccines receive approval without randomized trials, that tells me they are hiding some very important information. Remember, a very sick populace is good for business if you work in healthcare. BTW: that used to be the opposite. The primary goal of healthcare professionals was patient QOL. That seems to have fallen by the wayside for many (most) healthcare decision makers.
Might I add: A very sick population is easier to control than a healthy one. Easier to terrify into submission. As evidenced by the last 5 years. You are perceptive to see that institutionalized medical professionals are no longer interested in patient Quality of Life. They are interested in serving the institution. Rarely do the well being of the patient and the institution intersect.
• Vaccines are Catalysts for all Autoimmune Diseases: https://talknet.substack.com/p/vaccines-cause-autoimmune-diseases
>>Anyone still doubt that vaccines are one of the leading cause of numerous chronic health issues in our bodies?<<
Healthcare is in the business of creating and keeping REPEAT_CUSTOMERS not curing them. Curing a health issue means zero profit. Can't have that. Must make $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
to keep the for-profit HMOs firmly in business. Patients mean less than dog shit. All they want is you to keep giving them money. Period.