same old stan

[Meliva]

Money talks. Companies will use their money to try to get laws and regulations that benefit them. If you don't like it, you need to cut them out and not spend any of your money on anything that gives them profit. If you boycott all their products and those who use their products, until they change, and get enough people to join you, they'll either change, or go bankrupt. Companies don't get money out of thin air. They get them from folks buying their products and services. If you don't approve of what they do, you need to do better than just try to avoid their products. Completely swear off them. If your only options for a product use plastic, then make do without that product. If a company or business sends you packages with plastic, swear off that company or business.

It's very easy to complain and say that the company needs to change, or that plastic should be stopped from being used, but you're still using the very product you claim to hate. You can completely avoid plastic if you're really determined. It just means your quality of life is going to go way, way down. But if you truly care so much about this issue, then stand on principle and completely rid any plastic in your life. It's possible, after all, we've lived without plastic for thousands of years.

[Lachlan]

I guess you dont read disclaimers huh lachlan?
the indian journal is very adamant they are not checking the truth but merely reprinting studies
If I wanted to delve into the net worth and income of said journal
I might be able to guess whether or not folks pay to get on that list of reprinting
but the "weak" connection of a Pfizer-owned company having an article about itself with the aforementioned ties
is plenty strong for me.

i followed the trail with no inkling Pfizer would show up but for you its a coincidence of no importance

ok, if you say so. "weak" minds blindly copy and paste links without any thought as to where and why it came about to be in your face

I never said it was of no importance, I said it was a stretch that absolutely everyone is complicit and under Pfizer or other similar companies thumbs. Universities get funding from anywhere and everywhere. Pfizer and other such companies likely research and collaborate with hundreds of other universities as well. It does not mean that the University or individual people who work for the University would parrot what Pfizer says. Not sure in England but here in Australia a lot of people working for universities work part time only for them and have another job elsewhere. For example, one of my tutors teaches a few days a week and other days does counselling at a clinic.

[Lachlan]

Let's follow the trail to your indian journal.

Soiza RL, Scicluna C, Thomson is the man cited in the indian journal review

Who does he work for

University of amberdeen

There ya go. There are no ties to anyone that would have a motive to push an agenda, right?

except for one little detail

Big pharma bought out the University of Amberdeens spinout company hamptogene Its purchaser is listed as Wyeth Pharmaceuticals..................... Oh my

But then you say Well, they didn't create a vaccine, so the chance of polluted narratives is slim

except for one detail

Pfizer purchased Wyeth Pharmaceuticals

So now you can bet Pfizer certainly isn't going to let an employee print nothing but fluff for them

You want proof for the things I say, but I grow tired of doing your work for you
Unlike you, I don't just Google favorable phrases and copy and paste
I spend time searching nonpartisan questions to find the partisan connections


So you directed me to a peer-reviewed article on Pfizer by Pfizer

I just realised you have quoted a completely different study which I never sent to you. The one I sent you did not have any of those people listed.
This is the one you quoted
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33320183/

This is the one I quoted.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9552389/

Completely different studies. I've double checked the study I sent and it definitely did not have any of those people. In fact the study you seem to quote to me that does have all those people is in a completely different journal. So now in light of this I'm very sceptical about any of your points in relation to the study I sent you, considering that you are talking about some random study you found that happens to partially support your claims.

[Lil Lola]

Lachlan..the authors of your article..this is not even their respective fields to be writing an article like this.

Francesco Chirico 1,✉, Jaime A Teixeira da Silva 2, Panagiotis Tsigaris 3, Khan Sharun 4
Author information
1 Department of Public Health, Post-graduate School of Occupational Medicine, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
2 Independent Researcher, Kagawa-Ken, Japan
3 Department of Economics, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada
4 Division of Surgery, ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India
✉ For correspondence: Prof Francesco Chirico, Via Umberto Cagni, 21 20162 Milano, Italy

[Dmanwuzhere]

Let's follow the trail to your indian journal.

Soiza RL, Scicluna C, Thomson is the man cited in the indian journal review

Who does he work for

University of amberdeen

There ya go. There are no ties to anyone that would have a motive to push an agenda, right?

except for one little detail

Big pharma bought out the University of Amberdeens spinout company hamptogene Its purchaser is listed as Wyeth Pharmaceuticals..................... Oh my

But then you say Well, they didn't create a vaccine, so the chance of polluted narratives is slim

except for one detail

Pfizer purchased Wyeth Pharmaceuticals

So now you can bet Pfizer certainly isn't going to let an employee print nothing but fluff for them

You want proof for the things I say, but I grow tired of doing your work for you
Unlike you, I don't just Google favorable phrases and copy and paste
I spend time searching nonpartisan questions to find the partisan connections


So you directed me to a peer-reviewed article on Pfizer by Pfizer

I just realised you have quoted a completely different study which I never sent to you. The one I sent you did not have any of those people listed.
This is the one you quoted
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33320183/

This is the one I quoted.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9552389/

Completely different studies. I've double checked the study I sent and it definitely did not have any of those people. In fact the study you seem to quote to me that does have all those people is in a completely different journal. So now in light of this I'm very sceptical about any of your points in relation to the study I sent you, considering that you are talking about some random study you found that happens to partially support your claims.

Nice try you had two links listed I chose one to research and ran through it
Now every post you made has only one link
I don't mind you using the edit to escape my findings; that's fine

I could go through your 2nd one however, the list is a bit hilarious, and I find that a veterinarian as one of the contributors to funny to take seriously
When people like Peter McCullough, a prominent cardiologist, is removed from social platforms for speaking against the vaxxine

add to it you can't find a study encompassing the entirety of the pandemic now years later is a but sus

[Lachlan]

Let's follow the trail to your indian journal.

Soiza RL, Scicluna C, Thomson is the man cited in the indian journal review

Who does he work for

University of amberdeen

There ya go. There are no ties to anyone that would have a motive to push an agenda, right?

except for one little detail

Big pharma bought out the University of Amberdeens spinout company hamptogene Its purchaser is listed as Wyeth Pharmaceuticals..................... Oh my

But then you say Well, they didn't create a vaccine, so the chance of polluted narratives is slim

except for one detail

Pfizer purchased Wyeth Pharmaceuticals

So now you can bet Pfizer certainly isn't going to let an employee print nothing but fluff for them

You want proof for the things I say, but I grow tired of doing your work for you
Unlike you, I don't just Google favorable phrases and copy and paste
I spend time searching nonpartisan questions to find the partisan connections


So you directed me to a peer-reviewed article on Pfizer by Pfizer

I just realised you have quoted a completely different study which I never sent to you. The one I sent you did not have any of those people listed.
This is the one you quoted
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33320183/

This is the one I quoted.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9552389/

Completely different studies. I've double checked the study I sent and it definitely did not have any of those people. In fact the study you seem to quote to me that does have all those people is in a completely different journal. So now in light of this I'm very sceptical about any of your points in relation to the study I sent you, considering that you are talking about some random study you found that happens to partially support your claims.

Nice try you had two links listed I chose one to research and ran through it
Now every post you made has only one link
I don't mind you using the edit to escape my findings; that's fine

I could go through your 2nd one however, the list is a bit hilarious, and I find that a veterinarian as one of the contributors to funny to take seriously
When people like Peter McCullough, a prominent cardiologist, is removed from social platforms for speaking against the vaxxine

add to it you can't find a study encompassing the entirety of the pandemic now years later is a but sus

Yeah no, I only ever had one link. The only link I tried to change was the one from Lancet because the link was broken. I only ever sent one link per post to avoid confusion. The link you are accusing me of editing and deleting is findings for older people only which I never sent to you. I sent general studies regarding the efficiency of Covid regarding every demographic. So don't blame me for somehow confusing a study I never sent you with the ones I did send you. You were also talking about the indian journal so I assume you at least had a look at what I actually sent you but I'm not sure how you the found a different study, thought it was the same study I sent you and then talked about this random study you found like it was what I actually sent you. If you actually look back instead of making baseless claims that I edited my messages you will find the only ones talking about Covid that I edited was the one with the Lancet link and this current message. I'm beyond confused how you got your study which you mistakenly quoted and mine confused considering they are all different people and different journal.

That veterinarian is listed last in the study meaning he contributed the least to the paper.

I said I could try and find a study more recent but even if I do you will not believe it anyway so I have not bothered so far.

[Lachlan]

Lachlan..the authors of your article..this is not even their respective fields to be writing an article like this.

Francesco Chirico 1,✉, Jaime A Teixeira da Silva 2, Panagiotis Tsigaris 3, Khan Sharun 4
Author information
1 Department of Public Health, Post-graduate School of Occupational Medicine, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
2 Independent Researcher, Kagawa-Ken, Japan
3 Department of Economics, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada
4 Division of Surgery, ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India
✉ For correspondence: Prof Francesco Chirico, Via Umberto Cagni, 21 20162 Milano, Italy

number 4 and 3 yes probably, number 1 I would say is qualified and number 2 taking a quick look at what other papers he has helped with it is actually his area of expertise.

However what I sent is a literature review where the essentially look at other people's findings and summarize each study's reviews. The two less qualified individuals are listed last and second last meaning they contributed less to the study than the first 2.

[Dmanwuzhere]

Dr Peter McCullough is one of the top five most-published medical researchers in the United States and editor of two medical journals.
He has received the vaccine, and I'm not sure if or how many boosters he has had. (he had to get it due to his job mandating it)
But he has developed medical regiments for both the unvaccinated and the vaccinated.
He currently works with persistent SARS-CoV-2 Spike proteins that could be causing problems in his and his patients' bodies.
Dr Peter McCullough won first place on Preprints.org for a study he co-authored on vaccine-induced myocarditis.

You tell me how a doctor who is a leading practising physician and has been for years was de-platformed from social media
and an attempt was made to smear his name to keep his concerns about the vaccine quiet is in any way fair.

See, when I think peer review, I don't think of people from unrelated fields rehashing WHO-approved messaging and data.
I think of dissenting and approving people who deal with the topic daily for a living, voicing their concerns and approval.

But suddenly, with a government-mandated, barely tested drug, only approval can be echoed.
That is a sure-fire way to get me and like-minded people to reject any part of it.

If I bought PG and asked for people to say what they think of me and deleted comments from those who had negative things to say
And banned them from forums while allowing those who like me to post approval how long would the game last

It's the same principle here

A frigging veterinarian has an approved voice over someone who has and is continuing to work with the problems of the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.
I find that hilarious and infuriating at the same time
Trust in the approved viewpoint is impossible for me when a debate among peers is disallowed.

[Lachlan]

Dr Peter McCullough is one of the top five most-published medical researchers in the United States and editor of two medical journals.
He has received the vaccine, and I'm not sure if or how many boosters he has had. (he had to get it due to his job mandating it)
But he has developed medical regiments for both the unvaccinated and the vaccinated.
He currently works with persistent SARS-CoV-2 Spike proteins that could be causing problems in his and his patients' bodies.
Dr Peter McCullough won first place on Preprints.org for a study he co-authored on vaccine-induced myocarditis.

You tell me how a doctor who is a leading practising physician and has been for years was de-platformed from social media
and an attempt was made to smear his name to keep his concerns about the vaccine quiet is in any way fair.

See, when I think peer review, I don't think of people from unrelated fields rehashing WHO-approved messaging and data.
I think of dissenting and approving people who deal with the topic daily for a living, voicing their concerns and approval.

But suddenly, with a government-mandated, barely tested drug, only approval can be echoed.
That is a sure-fire way to get me and like-minded people to reject any part of it.

If I bought PG and asked for people to say what they think of me and deleted comments from those who had negative things to say
And banned them from forums while allowing those who like me to post approval how long would the game last

It's the same principle here

A frigging veterinarian has an approved voice over someone who has and is continuing to work with the problems of the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.
I find that hilarious and infuriating at the same time
Trust in the approved viewpoint is impossible for me when a debate among peers is disallowed.

I'm not going to claim to have any knowledge of this person so I won't discuss that since I don't know the facts for certain about him. What I will say though is that he promoted the use of Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid which does not really have any effect in fighting Covid. I also don't see him in the top 5 researchers in the US although he had published a lot of things.

What I will say though is that yes the major news outlets were pro vaccine. However when they heard of any fairly reputable or qualified person being against the vaccine they would focus a lot on that person. At times that extra attention even if negative though gives a person publicity and exposure which leads to more people following that person (whether right or wrong). I know Joe Rogan for example is not pro vaccine and some of the stuff in his podcasts are either wrong, misleading or only half right. As far as I'm aware sure he was popular before Covid but he became far more popular during and after Covid. The media likes to have sensationalist and dramatized news like that.
Also it isn't like there were no anti-vax news outlets.

[Dmanwuzhere]

Dr Peter McCullough is one of the top five most-published medical researchers in the United States and editor of two medical journals.
He has received the vaccine, and I'm not sure if or how many boosters he has had. (he had to get it due to his job mandating it)
But he has developed medical regiments for both the unvaccinated and the vaccinated.
He currently works with persistent SARS-CoV-2 Spike proteins that could be causing problems in his and his patients' bodies.
Dr Peter McCullough won first place on Preprints.org for a study he co-authored on vaccine-induced myocarditis.

You tell me how a doctor who is a leading practising physician and has been for years was de-platformed from social media
and an attempt was made to smear his name to keep his concerns about the vaccine quiet is in any way fair.

See, when I think peer review, I don't think of people from unrelated fields rehashing WHO-approved messaging and data.
I think of dissenting and approving people who deal with the topic daily for a living, voicing their concerns and approval.

But suddenly, with a government-mandated, barely tested drug, only approval can be echoed.
That is a sure-fire way to get me and like-minded people to reject any part of it.

If I bought PG and asked for people to say what they think of me and deleted comments from those who had negative things to say
And banned them from forums while allowing those who like me to post approval how long would the game last

It's the same principle here

A frigging veterinarian has an approved voice over someone who has and is continuing to work with the problems of the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.
I find that hilarious and infuriating at the same time
Trust in the approved viewpoint is impossible for me when a debate among peers is disallowed.

I'm not going to claim to have any knowledge of this person so I won't discuss that since I don't know the facts for certain about him. What I will say though is that he promoted the use of Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid which does not really have any effect in fighting Covid. I also don't see him in the top 5 researchers in the US although he had published a lot of things.

What I will say though is that yes the major news outlets were pro vaccine. However when they heard of any fairly reputable or qualified person being against the vaccine they would focus a lot on that person. At times that extra attention even if negative though gives a person publicity and exposure which leads to more people following that person (whether right or wrong). I know Joe Rogan for example is not pro vaccine and some of the stuff in his podcasts are either wrong, misleading or only half right. As far as I'm aware sure he was popular before Covid but he became far more popular during and after Covid. The media likes to have sensationalist and dramatized news like that.
Also it isn't like there were no anti-vax news outlets.

Peter Mcullough didn't give two chits about being removed from social media or bad publicity.
I did for him.
Although he had healthy clients, he also took those with comorbidities who were at risk for taking the vaccine and at risk if they contracted COVID-19.
You parrot the mundane talking points of what works or doesn't based on what expert opinion?
Who was giving out the alternatives to test it to argue against them?
no one.
The medications he utilizes are part of an ongoing treatment that includes them but are not the sole agent for treatment.

https://covid19.onedaymd.com/2021/12/dr-peter-mccullough-povidone-iodine.html

The fact they were de-platforming people like Mcullough citing misinformation about something they themselves hadn't tried is laughable
The ironic part is there were no COVID-19 vaccine experts either

Mccullough is an expert on COVID-19 now, and he has plenty of patients to prove his method, but during the height of sales, he was an evil naysayer who needed to be silenced.
Now he is celebrated for his work.... imagine that