Gene Simmons Slams Anti-Vaxxers and COVID Deniers: ‘You Are an Enemy’
https://www.thewrap.com/gene-simmons-anti-vaxxers-covid-deniers-enemy/
shareThis guy has always mocked people who took heroin, but now he's criticizing people who don't feel comfortable putting a needle inside of them.
shareapples and rocks
shareBoth delicious.
shareNope, apples and apples... except the vaccines are technically worse.
Here are the ingredients (lots of toxins people are putting into their system):
https://archive.md/Pl7pH
Lowers the efficacy of your immune system and enables replication and mutation (vaccines are what caused the Delta and other sub-strain variants):
https://www.cure-hub.com/post/sars-cov-2-vaccines-breakthrough-infections-and-lasting-natural-immunity
Turns out they kill 15 people for every 1 person they (theoretically) save:
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/new-vaers-analysis-reveals-hundreds
And just like heroin, you'll have to be addicted to these immune-destroying toxic-waste vials for the rest of your life with booster shoots every so many months. (VaaS) Vaccines as a Service:
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/covid-jab-protection-wanes-within-six-months-uk-researchers-2021-08-25/
This is a little info about “Doctor” Young from your first link
A recent article stated that Young took only one undergraduate course in biology and did not graduate from the University of Utah [3]. The rest of his “training” is smoke and mirrors. Robert Bradford, who was convicted of laetrile smuggling in the 1970s, was not even a college graduate. His alleged “doctoral degrees”—two of them—were acquired from credential mills. For nearly 30 years, he operated a network of enterprises that included a Mexican clinic that offered quack treatments, a company that marketed dubious drugs and dietary supplements, a “research institute” that did no significant research, and a nonaccredited “medical school” that operated for about five years [4]. In 2011, Bradford, his wife, and their company (American Biologics, doing business as C.R.B., Inc) were convicted of conspiring to violate federal food and drug laws and defraud individuals seeking medical care. The indictment stated that he marketed bogus Lyme disease products and a microscope system that was falsely claimed to diagnose the disease [4].
Clayton College of Natural Health was a nonaccredited correspondence school that advocated unscientific and quack methods [4]. Its requirements for graduation were minuscule compared to those for accredited colleges and universities that train health professionals. It closed in 2010 after Alabama began requiring accreditation for license renewal. Moreover, no correspondence school can prepare students to give competent health advice to clients because that requires years of clinical experience under expert supervision. Young’s connections with Clayton and Bradford reflect extremely poor judgment.
Claims that Robert Young is a distinguished researcher are preposterous.”
Your second link has a sample size of ten people and has in their FAQ “how do I know the test is not a scam”
Hardly a credible sources of information
Now that you're done writing ad hominem screeds against the people and not the data, feel free to address the last two links after you actually go through and discredit the data in the first two links.
shareHere’s the problem with your third link
“VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event. A report to VAERS does not mean the vaccine caused the event.”
“VAERS accepts reports from anyone, including patients, family members, healthcare providers and vaccine manufacturers”
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vaers/index.html
Here’s the problem with your third link
That's an attack on the source, not the data.
Get back with me when you can find fault with the actual findings, not how the findings are presented. share
It’s not an attack on the source to highlight where the source of the data says it’s not designed to determine the cause. It’s not an attack to say a hammer isn’t designed to knit a scarf.
Also the second statement says that the data comes from anyone. So it’s not 100% reliable as a sole source of data for a study which is why:
“If VAERS detects a pattern of adverse events following vaccination, other vaccine safety monitoring systems conduct follow up studies.“
It’s not an attack on the source to highlight where the source of the data says it’s not designed to determine the cause.
These are self-reports from those within the field who have encountered these AEs/SAEs and mortality related events associated with the vaccines. It's a data point. And according to most within the medical field, it's under-reported by a factor of 10, as pointed out in the lawsuit by America's Frontline Doctors:
https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/3c6a0774-cfad-46fa-aa97-af5aa5e74f00/M%20for%20PI%20file%20stamped.pdf
The funny thing about it is that you're attacking the data sources instead of examining the data, and the one question you've been trained to avoid asking is: why is the CDC, the Department of Defense, the World Health Organization, and the Food & Drug Administration PROHIBITING third-party tracking or ANY official tracking of the SAEs and death rates associated with the vaccines?
They're even purposely hiding data for alternative remedies, as highlighted by the Indian Bar Association:
https://greatgameindia.com/india-legal-notice-who-ivermectin/
All we have is VAERs, and you're more concerned with the veracity of the data (as anyone should be) rather than the fact that government and health officials are purposely being negligent in allowing independent tracking of said data.
It's a question you don't have an answer to, nor one you're even willing to ask. share
Add some more tinfoil to your hat.
shareDidn't know Reuters reporting on Biden's mandate was tinfoil, but on that we can both agree that mainstream media are fake news.
shareNot referring to the vaccine's decreased efficacy over time. But you already know that.
shareYou mean this?
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v1.full.pdf
Less than 42% effective after just six months?
Here’s the bios for the team over at curehub.com
MEET THE TEAM
Ian Hilgart-Martiszus
Founder and President
Ian is the founder of Cure-Hub and he has extensive experience in bioscience and data analysis. His goal is to create a system that eliminates barriers, bottlenecks and gatekeepers to scientific knowledge.
Briana Knight
Research Director
Briana brings a wealth of experience in basic, pre-clinical and clinical research. Also, Briana is currently attending medical school.
Notice how they can’t specify education, experience or work history?
Small minds attack people, bright minds examine the information.
Feel free to counter the actual information instead of looking for ways to discredit the people who provided the information you either didn't understand or cannot understand.
“ Small minds attack people, bright minds examine the information”
So did you examine the information that says Young is a liar? Or did you just backhandedly insult me?
Feel free to counter by providing actual information of how they are qualified and credible or that a sample size of ten people is the basis of a scientific study. (It’s not). Young is a fraud who’s lied about his credentials and was ordered to pay $105 million to a cancer victim who fed into his bullshit. There’s no reason to believe the information from him given his track record.
I can provide more reputable sources that discredit the “information” than your right wing grifters, but to you the CDC, the Mayo health clinic, Kaiser and others aren’t credible. Reuters is acceptable to you when it agrees with your bullshit, but probably not when it goes against your nonsense.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaccines-safe/fact-check-approved-vaccines-are-not-more-dangerous-than-covid-19-idUSL1N2P51T3
So did you examine the information that says Young is a liar? Or did you just backhandedly insult me?
Did you examine the data in the report, or did you just insult Young?
Reuters is acceptable to you when it agrees with your bullshit, but probably not when it goes against your nonsense.
Linking to people paid by the CCP isn't examining the data, it's dodging your responsibility to intellectually explain why the original data point is wrong, something only small minds are incapable of doing.
It's also hilarious how you attacked the credibility of the Cure Hub team even though -- if you were capable of reading the report -- you would have found that they're actually pro-vaxx, and suggest that even with reduced anti-bodies and crippling effects to the immune system, that people should still take the vaxx.
Nevertheless, in your blind rage against anyone who posts any links that you've been trained like Pavlov's dog to attack because it doesn't blindly follow the narrative, you didn't even bother to actually read the report first.
Ball is in your court, ace. share
It’s not an insult to point out that Young lied about his education. It’s a fact. Calling him a fraud is also not an insult. He’s been prosecuted multiple times for practicing medicine without a license.
I’ll admit I’m not a qualified scientist or doctor to go over “the data”, but I’m not pretending to be like some arrogant twat. I’m humble enough to admit it. I also know that any study worth their salt would hold up against scrutiny of the medical and scientific community, which his doesn’t. He’s about as qualified to produce his study as I am.
Also Reuters arent scientists, but they do report what scientists from the CDC say. Are you saying the CDC (a US government agency) is Chinese propaganda?
Also here’s Reuter’s funding
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-funders
Have fun when leopard’s eat your face.
It’s not an insult to point out that Young lied about his education. It’s a fact. Calling him a fraud is also not an insult. He’s been prosecuted multiple times for practicing medicine without a license.
None of that has any bearing on the microscopy. Get back with me when you can elucidate on the data, not the man.
I also know that any study worth their salt would hold up against scrutiny of the medical and scientific community, which his doesn’t. He’s about as qualified to produce his study as I am.
It doesn't hold up to scrutiny? Based on what comparative data sets? As I said, is there fault with the diffractometer or the spectroscopy?
Is graphene oxide NOT present in the blood samples?
Is crystallization NOT happening?
Are graphene tubes NOT causing coagulation?
Are parasitic bulges NOT taking place?
Are the capillaries NOT forming spikes?
Are clots NOT gathering within the vessels?
Also Reuters arent scientists, but they do report what scientists from the CDC say. Are you saying the CDC (a US government agency) is Chinese propaganda?
If you want to go that route, the CDC also states that only 6% of people died FROM COVID out of the 539,733 people who died WITH COVID:
https://i.imgur.com/EeDMJ50.png
https://archive.md/FKUxW
That's an archive taken directly from the CDC's website. That means in total, 32,383 people died from COVID, which is similar to the annual flu numbers. Everyone who died with COVID, according to the CDC, had 4 or more comorbidity factors. To quote the CDC.... "For over 6% of these deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 4.0 additional conditions or causes per death. For data on deaths involving COVID-19 by time-period, jurisdiction, and other health conditions"
share
OH MY GOD! Some unknown on the internet knows more than experts who've studied for years! I better read everything you have to say I almost typed that with a straight face! hahahahaha didn't make it though
share