Cite the sources. What qualifications do these sources have? This sounds like just another product of the “rumour mills”. If there was a bonafide study in a peer reviewed journal there would be considerably more credibility and thus more widespread acceptance by the scientific community.
Cite the sources. What qualifications do these sources have? This sounds like just another product of the “rumour mills”. If there was a bonafide study in a peer reviewed journal there would be considerably more credibility and thus more widespread acceptance by the scientific community.
Today peer review journals will not accept articles that are against the narrative. Use that argument against them. There is no double blinded prospective study proving any of what they claim is "the science."
Just like the "studies" done on hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin that had to be withdrawn quietly,
Or the valid studies that have been rejected or ignored for one reason or another by the journals who receive funding from foundations interested in keeping the jab going,
Or the few studies that found issues with the jab, but to get published stated at the end, but the jab still protects most people--but not citing evidence of it,
Or, later, when transmission by the vaxed was discovered, studies that said at the conclusion, but it keeps you from getting more sick--again without any evidence or citation all to get published.
Cite the sources. What qualifications do these sources have? This sounds like just another product of the “rumour mills”. If there was a bonafide study in a peer reviewed journal there would be considerably more credibility and thus more widespread acceptance by the scientific community.
You should drop this requirement.
Today peer review journals will not accept articles that are against the narrative. Use that argument against them. There is no double blinded prospective study proving any of what they claim is "the science."
Uh huh.
Just like the "studies" done on hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin that had to be withdrawn quietly,
Or the valid studies that have been rejected or ignored for one reason or another by the journals who receive funding from foundations interested in keeping the jab going,
Or the few studies that found issues with the jab, but to get published stated at the end, but the jab still protects most people--but not citing evidence of it,
Or, later, when transmission by the vaxed was discovered, studies that said at the conclusion, but it keeps you from getting more sick--again without any evidence or citation all to get published.
I remember them being referred to as Breakthrough Cases. 😂😂😂