The authors retracted the pre-print before publishing due to data errors. Here's the published version:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34603943/

No mention of hesitancy among those with PhD's.

Sources can matter, even for ********-funded studies like this one. The actual published study versus a media report on a pre-print yield different conclusions.

Yep, I’m sure that’s why they retracted it..lol.



But either way, no need to argue about that. Maybe that’s accurate and maybe it’s not. Point still stands that pharmaceutical companies have a sh!tty track record, and the current experiments don’t seem to be an exception to that trend.

Did you see this part?

"To be included in the analysis sample, participants had to complete the questions on vaccine uptake and intent, and report a gender other than “prefer to self-describe.”. This exclusion was made after discovering that the majority of fill-in responses for self-described gender were political/discriminatory statements or otherwise questionable answers (e.g. Apache Helicopter or Unicorn), and that as a group, those who selected self-described gender (<1% of the sample) had a high frequency of uncommon responses (e.g., Hispanic ethnicity [41.4%], the oldest age group [23.2% ≥75 years] and highest education level [28.1% Doctorate]), suggesting the survey was not completed in good faith. "

It was a ******** funded survey study and they got trolled.

There are 3 versions of the pre-printhttps://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...2.article-info

As well as the final, reviewed, version I posted above.

Let me guess upfront: we got soy cuck slaves itt defending the government and drug companies and attacking op?

JLC is gonna spend all day trying to discredit another doctor who's not a big pharma shill lol.

Yeah, I saw that. Pretty crazy.

That's every J.L.C. post. Very obvious with the whole trying to discredit the entire idea that big pharma kills people routinely by fudging data by constantly trying to sidetrack the topic with the PhD thing. A tactic that wincel used to try and do all the time.

I'm skeptical of mainstream media generally as they have shown a willingness to act as propaganda agents for government and are primarily owned by a couple of giant investment firms.

Honestly no idea about a thread being "fringe" or deleted. I do know I've seen something about a high number of people starving to death in third world countries due to pandemic policies, but I don't have a solid source for that.Take it as you will. I don't generally have a lot of respect for authority that isn't rooted in competence, but in some type of social norm.

I'm aware of the wisdom of learning from other peoples' mistakes, but also know that the people who make it into positions of power are rarely the most competent or benevolent people. They are more often the ones who are good at manipulating others, playing politics, and also believe that they are better than everyone else.146,000 to 187,000 vaccine associated US deaths between February and August, 2021.

I mean I suppose that might not be plain English I'm reading and maybe they aren't really saying that there were vaccine related deaths in the 6 figures.

Katya is doctor?

Context matters when reporting model results. This paper also only seems to be available on the authors Researchgate.

However, I can understand why that statement would have appeal, especially when taken out of context.

Katya, do you have a link to the study that shows the high vaccine hesitance of PHDs?

For some reason I can't find it anywhere.

It is amusing how insecure OP is with her choice. Just don't get the vaccine. You seem obsessed with trying to dig up obscure false info about vaccines. Perhaps you should find like a real hobby or something fulfilling to do with your life.

Or just keep searching and you can circle back to posting more fake news next week. See ya then!

I'm anti-EUA across the board. But I did find it fascinating that I have been waiting for the PRINCIPLE trial for ivermectin for like 6 months now, as all other studies have been discounted for (insert reason here), and naturally it mysteriously is halted in December for "lack of access to the medication". Never seen that before in my life.

It was revised before being published"To be included in the analysis sample, participants had to complete the questions on vaccine uptake and intent, and report a gender other than “prefer to self-describe.”. This exclusion was made after discovering that the majority of fill-in responses for self-described gender were political/discriminatory statements or otherwise questionable answers (e.g. Apache Helicopter or Unicorn), and that as a group, those who selected self-described gender (<1% of the sample) had a high frequency of uncommon responses (e.g., Hispanic ethnicity [41.4%], the oldest age group [23.2% ≥75 years] and highest education level [28.1% Doctorate]), suggesting the survey was not completed in good faith. "

It's a challenge with pre-prints. Once (social) media gets ahold if it, there's no putting the genie back in the bottle. The retractions don't get much air time.

I didn't dig anything up. The pre-print was posted on the first page of this thread.

That's because it is Wincel

The death threat suggests you might be rustled.

I posted ITT that I think we should all be skeptical of pharma and marketing in general. I also stated that I think making things up to support a point harms, rather than helps, an argument.

Why not stick to facts?

There are some MSM links posted in this thread. I didn't post any of them.

Nope.

I post items I find interesting that appear to originate with credible individuals.

There was a fairly long period of time when we were being told that the vaccines were protective of those who were most at risk and daily life seemed to be heading back towards something like normal.

I really only got drawn back into the topic when vaccine passports and mandates came into play.

If the injections were being offered as an option to individuals with a risk/benefit disclosure I highly doubt there would be much interest.

If you believe things I post are fake news that's fine. I try to be careful to credit where things come from and to link sources.

Meanwhile our public policy czars are still running an ad of a black man with a little girl where the little girl begs her daddy to please get the vaccine because she doesn't want to get sick with the scary bad virus. The man agrees to get the shot; "I will do it for you because I don't want you to get sick". Then the tagline at the end says that having the shots makes you "5 times less likely to get COVID" which is verified untrue at this point.

The open racism was nauseating before we had such solid data that the shots just don't work that well. They already knew that the virus wasn't a big risk to kids.

Is it a "fight fire with fire" approach? One "side" uses mistruth as propaganda so the other "side" does the same?

You all need to watch this docuseries, 8 episodes long:



Of course this show isn't being advertised like others, it should be the only show every single person watches this year to understand based on true and very recent history what is actually happening with these pharma companies and the FDA.

I know one woman who is a PHD scientist and she is anti-vaxx, however she said in her University 90% of her colleagues are not only vaxxed, they are pro covid Vax.

Who makes the most money, the people in on and shilling the scam, or the people trying to resist and dismantle it?

The truly smart ones are the ones that know it's a scam but will shill it to profit from it srs.

The numbers you see in that study are probably real, but you just don't understand the words that are typed right after those numbers. If you took the time to understand what a vaccine related death was you'd see that anytime someone dies around the time they got a vaccine it is required to report the death. By sheer numbers if there was a trend or correlation of unusual circumstances it could then be caught even if it seemed like something entirely unrelated to the vaccine. But since you are some sort of weird obsessed antivaxer you see 150k deaths and the word vaccine in the same sentence and go "see look what vaccines do!"

Also where are your sources for PhDs not getting vaccinated?

I read about that drug years ago. There was some pharmacologist or w/e who said that the studies about its poor efficacy and danger were put in the trash.

False. You are making assumptions.

Not sure why I'm bothering to reply, but you can apply the same reasoning to "deaths with COVID" and say that "just because there have been X people who died within 60 days of a positive COVID test doesn't meant that COVID is what caused them to die".

That knife cuts both ways.

How many people just happened to die within a short time of having other common vaccines?

No where near that many. Not ever. Not including decades of injections.

Did every one of those people die because they received the injections? Can't say for sure, though there was supposedly a pathologist who was actually able to autopsy some post vaccination fatalities who said he believed *at least* 40% could be directly attributed to the vaccinations.

If the shots are so super then why have there been multiple countries where the cases and hospitalizations *increased* in line with the increase in the country's vaccination rate?

If you watched the clip they claim that a scientist with the Merck actually put it in writing that it was "too bad about the 3 cardiac deaths" but that they would make a good profit on the drug. They omitted the deaths from their analysis because it would have hurt their case for approval.

I wasn't trying to begin another vaxx thread here, but there were similar things reported re:mrna vaxx trials [rigging the data].

This is a link to an internal safety report on the Pfizer injections from early in the roll out which was obtained via FOIA.

https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads...experience.pdf

About half of the adverse events recorded were serious.



Per a statistician:https://roundingtheearth.substack.co...rketing-safety

Is his inference correct? I don't know. But so far as I've found there isn't any evidence that the injections are reducing overall mortality.

How do you figure I am the one making assumptions? Why don't you list your credentials so you can explain to me how you've come to understand how reporting works in the medical field.

See this is how it actually works;https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/do...id-19-vaccines

Here is the pertinent part of the article
"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires health care providers to report any serious adverse event (including death) that happens after a COVID-19 vaccination – whether or not the provider thinks there is any link. The CDC says, "Health care providers are required to report to VAERS the following adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination…regardless if the reporter thinks the vaccine caused the AE." AE stands for adverse event and includes death.

That means that if a vaccinated person drowns, gets in a car crash or is struck by lightning, their death must be reported to VAERS as an adverse event. Since we've vaccinated over 223 million people in the United States, many deaths will occur coincidentally after vaccination."


I don't think you even read the part where the 150k deaths are from all vaccines not just covid... I don't understand what all your random screeching is about, but if you are unwilling to accept the facts of the matter then you are choosing to remain willfully ignorant which is exactly what I accused you of in the first place. Again I really don't care if you chose to be vaccinated or not, but just be honest that you aren't doing it from a position of higher knowledge granting you superior decision making. You are one of those people who thinks finding obscure articles on the internet from nameless "researchers" that validate your incorrect assumptions is equal to knowledge.

What you fail to state because you’re intellectually dishonest, is that the peer-reviewed study removed those samples and still found that PHD and professional degree holders were more hesitant than masters and 4 year degree holders.https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...e-0260731-t001

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...e.0260731.s009

It's like when Bayer had meds contaminated with I think hiv. They couldn't sell in the states. So they sold overseas. People got sick. Nobody went to jail. But let's trust the science guys.