When will the JJabbed be considered a liability to the insurance company ? Customers asking if Pilot is jabbed now..

[Actuality]

😴

[5Lgreenback]

1 hour ago, carholme said:

5Lgreenback;

Wikipedia has done this to every single doctor that has been brave enough to speak out during this pandemic. (PROOF)?? No matter how well respected they were before speaking out, the rules are, if they speak out, they must be destroyed. Wikipedia isn’t a trustworthy source and in fact have a history of being mercenaries for smear campaigning people, even prior to covid. (PROOF)??
 

But how about we read the article, and actually try to counter the content of it,  with its numerous references? Character attacks are cheap and meaningless tactic (But apparently still effective in some people) by our corrupt establishment. 
 

BTW- did you read what you posted? Many of the viewpoints they accuse him of having as “wrong” have been proven correct. (PROOF)??

 

Can you please supply proof for your statements? Your opinions are fine but they are just that, your opinions.

Look up the inventor of mRNA technology, Dr Robert Malone, well respected  Dr Peter McCollough, Dr Tess Lawrie, etc etc. Basically any doctor who has spoken out publicly about the lies we’re being feed. And you will see Wikipedia and MSM does character attacks on them. 
 

Then, if they are still available go to the Waybackmachine (time stamps pages on the Internet) and look up their Wikipedia profile before covid nonsense even started. You’ll find 2 completely different profiles. 

Wikipedia has always been a source of special interests trying to control public opinion, and now covid has just amplified that. 

And do you actually need me to post proof that sucralose and Mono Sodium Glutamate is bad for you? Because it appears  you wouldn’t read the studies or papers even if I posted them. 

This is all a side track/ distraction anyways, did you read the article? If so what parts do you disagree with, and why? 

[carholme]

I'm not looking up anything. I asked you to provide proof for the oints you made and you haven't done that.

Stop wasting my time, keep peddling your bs and have fun!

[Grug]

Ok, it's a weather day and I'm bored, so I bit again....

Read the article, and followed most of the references.

Out of 74 references, only 13 could be considered "scholarly" or "empirical", and these barely supported the point being made for which they were referenced.  The remaining majority are media links of dubious standing.

The sections that make the more extreme claims have the least or poorest references, none of them empirical.  The Hot Shots section is an absolute cracker when you follow the crumbs.

It is admirable from an academic freedom point of view that the SNI Journal published it, considering it's shortcomings, but being an opinion piece, I suppose there is more room to get away with it.

[5Lgreenback]

1 hour ago, carholme said:

I'm not looking up anything. I asked you to provide proof for the oints you made and you haven't done that.

Stop wasting my time, keep peddling your bs and have fun!

The spoon fed video and simple directions weren’t enough? You didn’t even watch the video did you lol. 

You're not even willing to use you brain or any effort, and this is why we are where we are. Good luck to you. 

[5Lgreenback]

53 minutes ago, Grug said:

Ok, it's a weather day and I'm bored, so I bit again....

Read the article, and followed most of the references.

Out of 74 references, only 13 could be considered "scholarly" or "empirical", and these barely supported the point being made for which they were referenced.  The remaining majority are media links of dubious standing.

The sections that make the more extreme claims have the least or poorest references, none of them empirical.  The Hot Shots section is an absolute cracker when you follow the crumbs.

It is admirable from an academic freedom point of view that the SNI Journal published it, considering it's shortcomings, but being an opinion piece, I suppose there is more room to get away with it.

Ok, and then we get into how do we determine what is a good reference and isn’t? Maybe more importantly, which organization gets to decide that, and how do they get their funding? 
 

im surprised your able to go thru all those references, as many of them were references to even more references within. 
 

Cant comment on Hots Shots section, never heard of it. 

[500driver]

On 11/10/2022 at 8:21 AM, Actuality said:

He probably made a new account to be anonymous but he posts these links on Facebook and then on here 5 minutes later so…

Well there’s the problem. People are still on facebook!? 

[bgk135]

11 hours ago, 5Lgreenback said:

Ok, and then we get into how do we determine what is a good reference and isn’t? Maybe more importantly, which organization gets to decide that, and how do they get their funding? 
 

im surprised your able to go thru all those references, as many of them were references to even more references within. 
 

Cant comment on Hots Shots section, never heard of it. 

You don't get to determine what is and isn't a good medical reference. You're working with a high school science class education. Virology/pharmacology/immunology papers are not written for the layperson. General practitioners are not qualified to comment on, let alone critique, papers about specialist topics. What makes you think you possess either the requisite educational background and/or mental capacity to do so? 

[simpleton]

9 hours ago, bgk135 said:

You don't get to determine what is and isn't a good medical reference. You're working with a high school science class education. Virology/pharmacology/immunology papers are not written for the layperson. General practitioners are not qualified to comment on, let alone critique, papers about specialist topics. What makes you think you possess either the requisite educational background and/or mental capacity to do so? 

Hmmm.....pot calling kettle

[bgk135]

7 hours ago, simpleton said:

Hmmm.....pot calling kettle

As none of my education is healthcare-related, I defer to the consensus of actual experts, not the <1% who crave the spotlight.