<<It's total garbage.>>
It's a controversial subject isn't it? Those "could's" and "might's" will be placed with great precision as big bucks are at stake. Some ceo with powerful backup could get awful uppity if he decides to disagree with the data. You know, data that might effect his bonus. -g-
But it's interesting what you say... "garbage"...
I was looking for some paper on ADE yesterday, and randomly came across this article.
<<"In 2020 COVID-19 led to an unprecedented stream of papers being submitted to journals. Scientists and physicians all around the globe were in need for information about this new disease. In this climate, many articles were accepted after extremely fast peer-reviews to provide the scientific community with the latest discoveries and knowledge. Unfortunately, this also led to articles retraction due to authors’ misconduct or errors in methodology and/or conclusions. The aim of this study is to investigate the number and characteristics of retracted papers, and to explore the main causes that led to retraction. We conducted a systematic review on retracted articles, using PubMed as data source. Our inclusion criteria were the following: English-language retracted articles that reported original data, results, opinions or hypotheses on COVID-19 and Sars-CoV-2. Twenty-seven retracted articles were identified, mainly reporting observational studies and opinion pieces. Many articles published during the first year of the pandemic have been retracted, mainly due to the authors' scientific misconduct. Duplications, plagiarism, frauds and absence of consent, were the main reasons for retractions. In modern medicine, researchers are required to publish frequently, and, especially during situations like the COVID-19 pandemic, when articles were rapidly published, gaps in peer-reviews system and in the path to scientific publication arose.">>
Biased, wrong and counterfeited evidences published during the COVID-19 pandemic, a systematic review of retracted COVID-19 papers - PMC (nih.gov)
Standards are falling. Actually standards have fell through the floor some years ago.
The paper you cite as "garbage" has not been retracted, but maybe you are correct about the general state of medical science these days. It really is in the chit house isn't it? It is absolutely disgusting what is accepted as an acceptable adverse reaction rate to a "vaxxine". One has to go back to the 19th century (or thereabouts) to find standards as low as we have today.
The "vaxxine" harm rates are off the charts by any normal historical measurement.
Thirty years ago, you could medically insure a family with a top rate facility in the USA for about $150 a month. First rate service too.
But now we have some ex terrorist despot telling us new pandemics are just around the corner, and we have new "vaxxines" on the way. "Vaxxines" that probably will not work, but will maim and kill at ever higher rates, as that is the direction that has deliberately been taken.
btw it's not Sophia Dahl you need to be checking upon, it's the link to Dr Martins statements and work. He says all the references and documents are published. All of them, and in great detail.
|
