Here's one - heck, here's more than one:actionjackson » 12 Jan 2024, 8:08 pm » wrote: ↑ I'm still waiting for you to post peer reviewed studies that support your claims. Hell, just post one study. ONE. Just ONE.
You can't.
Most of the MD’s need to be FIRED by their patients never to return again. They must pay for their utter failure to render proper care.DeezerShoove » 06 Feb 2024, 11:06 pm » wrote: ↑ To me it's **** amazing...
1) A sigh of relief having dodged this **** list...![]()
2) Big pharma denied a 75 year records seal.![]()
And the **** STILL push for more drugs to be foisted on us.
We are being told to "ask your doctor about..."
Your "doctor" knows he is being checked up on. If he dares WHISPER against the vax, his livelihood is on the line.DeezerShoove » 06 Feb 2024, 11:06 pm » wrote: ↑ To me it's **** amazing...
1) A sigh of relief having dodged this **** list...![]()
2) Big pharma denied a 75 year records seal.![]()
And the **** STILL push for more drugs to be foisted on us.
We are being told to "ask your doctor about..."
My current doctor didn’t GAFF though he did get get a visit and threats from the state health dept.Cannonpointer » 06 Feb 2024, 11:15 pm » wrote: ↑ Your "doctor" knows he is being checked up on. If he dares WHISPER against the vax, his livelihood is on the line.
These don't lead to a RWNJ site - they lead to journals of peer review:
Oh, the science is STILL coming in, kid. But hey - if you think the unvaxed are dying more, then you should be happy that YOU were the smart one. Why ya mad, if ya winnin?
ALRIGHT, ALRIGHT! Jeez Louise...
This evidence?
I Prefer peer review to conspiracy - AND to Rachael Maddow.
Here are links to some documents.
Here are some more:
And more:
Those WITHOUT balls react differently to the gray men.Tempest62 » 06 Feb 2024, 11:16 pm » wrote: ↑ My current doctor didn’t GAFF though he did get get a visit and threats from the state health dept.
What it does NOT refer to is certainty or near certainty or even probability. Do you suppose any of these use the word may? I'll bet they may.actionjackson » 15 Jan 2024, 4:32 pm » wrote: ↑ May is standard verbiage in peer review. May/may not. Might/might not. It refers to the participants and extrapolation to the larger population.
Most of them have no balls and thus betrayed the Hippocratic oath.Cannonpointer » 06 Feb 2024, 11:28 pm » wrote: ↑ Those WITHOUT balls react differently to the gray men.
But is anything really ever "proved" to the satisfaction of a retarded cultist?
I mean, seriously. What would it take to prove to a fruitcake that there is good science behind refusing the vax, to seek "safety" from a fairly weak and easy-to-beat corona virus?
Cannonpointer » 06 Feb 2024, 11:31 pm » wrote: ↑ But is anything really ever "proved" to the satisfaction of a retarded cultist?
Follow your spore?actionjackson » 01 Feb 2024, 6:36 pm » wrote: ↑ You know how to find the aluminum foil in the store.