It's the usual scare tactics folks. Instead of supplying any evidence that more people are dying from the vaccines than the virus, the article presents a mishmash of slanted interpretations, occasional detectable effects of the vaccine called "injuries", discredited academics attempting to keep their speaking fees, single cases here and there that "might" be related to the vaccines, and so forth.
Consider this quote from one of OP's article's linked studies: 29 August 2022 "Conclusion: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that the risk of myocarditis is more than seven fold higher in persons who were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 than in those who received the vaccine. These findings support the continued use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines among all eligible persons per CDC and WHO recommendations." https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2022.951314/full
LOL did you quote CDC science again. Haha
Keep following your lying CDC government experts Covid Nazi!
Reminder that TwoChodes posted on Omega that it’s OK when the CDC Director LIES on National TV and promises everyone that the vaccinated wont carry a respiratory virus.
THE CDC DIRECTOR LYING WHILE HAVING A CONVERSATION is OK because she is not reading the lie.
Just quoting from one of OP's links. You wouldn't know that, of course. You don't read anything except the Internet Research Agency scripts your менеджер hands you.
Everything you wrote here is gibberish, especially this line:
academics attempting to keep their speaking fees
Anybody that does any study has an inherent bias. We all do. Scientists and researchers do their work for pay and/or recognition. That’s the whole point of scientific studies being peer reviewed, to isolate out the biases.
Take, for example, your pharma-funded modeling study that you posted or your conservative-voting states have higher excess deaths study. These are so blatantly biased that nobody will even bother to peer-review.
Only if you didn't follow OP's links and actually read them. I particularly liked this part of one of them: 29 August 2022 "Conclusion: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that the risk of myocarditis is more than seven fold higher in persons who were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 than in those who received the vaccine. These findings support the continued use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines among all eligible persons per CDC and WHO recommendations." https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2022.951314/full
academics
You left out "discredited". They can't work in their profession, but they can make money by pandering to the people who are insulated - either by their fear or their "friends" - from the reality of a global pandemic.
conservative-voting states have higher excess deaths
It's the usual scare tactics folks. Instead of supplying any evidence that more people are dying from the vaccines than the virus, the article presents a mishmash of slanted interpretations, occasional detectable effects of the vaccine called "injuries", discredited academics attempting to keep their speaking fees, single cases here and there that "might" be related to the vaccines, and so forth.
Consider this quote from one of OP's article's linked studies: 29 August 2022 "Conclusion: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that the risk of myocarditis is more than seven fold higher in persons who were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 than in those who received the vaccine. These findings support the continued use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines among all eligible persons per CDC and WHO recommendations." https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2022.951314/full
LOL did you quote CDC science again. Haha Keep following your lying CDC government experts Covid Nazi!
Reminder that TwoChodes posted on Omega that it’s OK when the CDC Director LIES on National TV and promises everyone that the vaccinated wont carry a respiratory virus.
— - quotes from TWOCHODES, 2022
https://omegacanada.win/p/15K6qHfL0P/x/c/4Of12tDfB5e
Just quoting from one of OP's links. You wouldn't know that, of course. You don't read anything except the Internet Research Agency scripts your менеджер hands you.
Everything you wrote here is gibberish, especially this line:
Anybody that does any study has an inherent bias. We all do. Scientists and researchers do their work for pay and/or recognition. That’s the whole point of scientific studies being peer reviewed, to isolate out the biases.
Take, for example, your pharma-funded modeling study that you posted or your conservative-voting states have higher excess deaths study. These are so blatantly biased that nobody will even bother to peer-review.
Only if you didn't follow OP's links and actually read them. I particularly liked this part of one of them: 29 August 2022 "Conclusion: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that the risk of myocarditis is more than seven fold higher in persons who were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 than in those who received the vaccine. These findings support the continued use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines among all eligible persons per CDC and WHO recommendations." https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2022.951314/full
You left out "discredited". They can't work in their profession, but they can make money by pandering to the people who are insulated - either by their fear or their "friends" - from the reality of a global pandemic.
"What did he die of?"
"What was he registered as?"
Where's the bias?
This might be the stupidest thing i ever read. You a retard?
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30512/w30512.pdf