Hmm...I wonder why PhDs are some of the people most hesitant to get these new mrna injections?



Cliffs:

- no more effective than existing drugs
- rolled out on the promise of lower stomach upset
- data that was against the drug [3 cardiac deaths] was omitted/ignored
- on the market for a bit over 4 years
- estimated death toll in the US 40,000 to 60,000
- Merck still netted about $1 billion dollars after paying out damages
- no one was sent to jail

Just saw the clip. Feel like I should carve out time to listen to the entire podcast.

Just the tip op

Go read the book "ending medical reversal"

It should be mandatory for all govt officials before suggesting any mandates on rushed treatments.

Probably. Just watched this clip too.



Essentially the drug companies give bad information to doctors and doctors "believe the science".

- Drug overdose the leading cause of death ages 18 to 49.

- US dead last at preventing deaths in the same age group due to preventable causes.

you still haven't figured this thing out have you katya?

Where are you seeing that PhDs are the most hesitant toward getting an mRNA vaccine?

I didn't listen to the video but remember the VIOXX tragedy. The company that made VIOXX just made up some of the studies used to approve the drug. The studies hadn't been done. They were created by the marketing department at Merck.

Forget about phDs... The #1 and #2 people in the FDA resigned over pressure to approve boosters through EUA.

Political pressure within these administrations is a massive problem.

The people I knew in college who wanted to go after a PHD were all afraid of the real world. They were intelligent but way too comfortable with what they perceived as the safety and stability of the ivory tower of collegiate education. We had teammates for projects, and one of my partners in a class had laid out his path intentionally so he would never leave university.

I'm not terribly interested or impressed with PHD's. Sure there are some brilliant ones, but there are a lot more timothies.

timothies

I was just asking about the OP's statement:

Do you mean I haven't made a firm conclusion if these events are unfolding as the agendas of multiple amoral self-interested parties collide into an epic clusterf*ck, or if there is some kind of actual guiding hand at work intentionally breaking the world?

- skeptical
- pragmatic
- open minded

I can conclude that the effects are evil [damage being done across multiple dimensions [health, wealth, human rights, etc.]. And the concentration of too much money and too much power into to few hands appears undeniable.No, you were just trying to start some BS back and forth to derail the thread. F*ck off already.

Scepticism of pharma companies makes sense. I think we should all be sceptical of taking marketing messages at face value.

But, I think you were attempting to appeal to an authority with no support. If we're going to untangle false marketing claims, should we use false statements in the process? I think using false statements to increase the impact takes away from the message of the argument.

Opiod deaths are not comparable. People died from overdoses

Not tonight dear, I've got a headache.

Two different things.

- Vioxx: anti-inflammatory that caused blood clots/cardiac deaths

- Oxycontin: opioid that was marketed at non-addictive and safe to prescribe for all kinds of pain; actually was addictive and didn't last for 12 hours which is how it was presented to physicians

It's morning herePlus a 3rd different thing, mRNA vaccines

watch this video katya it's only 2 min.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/jZIqRhiQtnyw/

OP made a thread about the world running out of food during the height of pandemic hysteria. Posted some random link. 0 credibility.

??

This thread is about vioxx/FDA failures, long-term medical reversal, and pressure.

This thread was based on trying to conflate those with covid mRNA vaccines with a baseless statement.

That's not what the paper you linked reports.

Did op answer this?

This was the response:

It was an introductory sentence to increase reader interest by tying in the presented topic to current events.

The broader topic of the linked clips is that scientific studies are being manipulated to produce conclusions beneficial to pharmaceutical interests.

There was a previously posted news item stating that the least educated and most educated were those least likely to be getting the experimental injections.

I believe it follows that people directly involved in acquiring funding for scientific studies, designing and running studies and in reading published results are also most likely to have some awareness of the pressures brought to bear on publishing acceptable results, therefore more likely to be skeptical about believing *the science*.

It's a post on a forum, not an opening statement for the high school debate team.

I recall posting one or two food related videos which IIRC were from a youtuber in the UK and a channel called EpicEconomics [or some such] which were mainly about food shortages due to interruptions in the supply chain.

No idea what that has to do with an interview clip about the pharmaceutical industry and their shady practices.What paper are you reading?

It has to do with your credibility and how you clearly have a skewed way of looking at matters of public policy.

And that thread you posted about food shortages was a doomsday scenario. Mods deleted it. Height of covid hysteria and the unknown of what it is and you post a fringe website saying that stores will not have any food. FOH with that.

It's an untrue statement employed as a fallacious appeal to authority.
I was reading the linked paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...mortality_risk

"Vaccination correlated negatively with mortality 6-20 weeks post-injection, while vaccination predicted all-cause mortality 0-5 weeks post-injection in almost all age groups and with an age-related temporal pattern consistent with the US vaccine
rollout. Results from fitted regression slopes (p<0.05 FDR corrected) suggest a US national average VFR of 0.04% and higher VFR with age (VFR=0.004% in ages 0-17 increasing to 0.06% in ages >75 years), and 146K to 187K vaccine-associated US deaths between February and August, 2021. Notably, adult vaccination increased ulterior mortality of unvaccinated young (<18, US; <15, Europe)."

The paper does not report "6 figure jabbie deaths in America alone".

Of course there are reasons to be concerned with the current situation. But making things up to support a position does more to weaken the position than it does to strengthen it.

Lmfao….always with the deflection with this guy. But here ya go. Now we can get back to talking about the horrible track record of pharmaceutical companies and the bureaucracies that supposedly oversee them.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/am...vid/ar-AANjRHh

The next big redpill for normies to swallow is how money driven and corrupt our healthcare system is.