Which of her previous claims does that NIH study affirm? What is the baseline data that makes that significant?
Didn't she assert that Edward Snowden was a government plant/false flag operation? Yore right she is on the fringe.
Oh, well, David, since there was a physical reaction that was totally unexpected ( and *clearly temporary,* like inflation) and since that couldn’t possibly have a completely unexpected long term effect (Or could it? who knows? They rushed it out without knowing what the side effects, short term or long term, would be. But they’ve gotta make those profits!), then anyone like Naomi Wolf who was reporting on these side effects virtually from the beginning - correctly, I might add - needed to be shut up and vilified as a kook. So what if she was right all along, she’s been labelled as batshit crazy, so no one should pay the slightest attention to her, what did you call it, garbage? Sorry, my rotund friend, you pissed away any credibility you might have had when you mocked her academic credentials and pretended your much less impressive academic career is superior. Did you study a lot of medicine in your philosiohy and computer classes? Oh, one other question: how much of your bragged-about wealth did your $400/hour analysis persuade you to invest in Pfizer? Are you starting to get a little skittish, gonna do a panic sell off soon? Oh well, don’t worry, your investments in the weapons manufacturing industry will more than cover up your losses. Get back to your treehouse and massage your bruised ego. I hear thumb sucking has great healing power.
Man I wish there were more hours in the day...Who’s laughing at whom now?
Dr. Naomi Wolf Details 'The Chamber of Horrors' the Jab Poses to Women's Reproductive Health
Pfizer acknowledges 20-something different ways its shot can send a woman’s menstrual cycle into disarray.dailyclout.io
I have no idea, Medic, nor do I particularly care. The point of this thread is Naomi Wolf has been shown to be correct after months/years of serial abuse coming at her from every conceivable angle, pro-vaxxers and anti-vaxxers alike. They literally tried to censor/cancel her and get the public to believe she is a raging nut job. It would be nice if some of them would apologize. But of course they could never bring themselves to do that. If they admitted they were wrong about that people might start to wonder what else they are wrong about. Hell, they might even start to wonder about it themselves. That’s why I suggested that @davidallen construct a safe space.Man I wish there were more hours in the day...
Question for you, Dan. There are several tables in that link that show that females had a higher rate of "adverse" vaccine related events than males. Do you think the conclusion that females actually experienced "adverse" vaccine issues more than males is the most accurate one? Or would it be more accurate to say that females reported more "adverse" events that males did?
Would it surprise you to find out that multiple studies have demonstrated that females report "adverse" events at a higher rate than males but that males actually experience a higher rate of serious and fatal "adverse" events than females? Here's a good one to start with...
Reported adverse drug reactions in women and men: Aggregated evidence from globally collected individual case reports during half a century
Global post marketing surveillance data on spontaneous reports indicate that women, from puberty and onwards and especially in their reproductive years, report more ADRs than men. However, there is a higher proportion of serious and fatal ADRs among male reports. Our results suggest important...www.thelancet.com
Good read. We know that vaccines cause an inflammatory reaction in the body and we know that inflammation in the body can alter menstruation. I wonder if that's the correlation seen in the vaccine data.Who’s laughing at whom now?
Dr. Naomi Wolf Details 'The Chamber of Horrors' the Jab Poses to Women's Reproductive Health
Pfizer acknowledges 20-something different ways its shot can send a woman’s menstrual cycle into disarray.
That womens’ menstruation cycles were adversely affected. When she pointed this out she was accused of everything but witchcraft.
"Adversely affected?" According to the study I linked above, here's the current available conclusion:
I see that David has managed to get you to take up his line of argument, a line in which I have no interest in following. It is immaterial to me the severity of the adversre effect or the assumed temporal nature therein. Since it's a vaccine that had never been tried and was barely tested before being unleashed on the public I don't think anyone should make an assertion with utmost certainty. But that's not the point of the thread as I intended it, and I don't give a flying flip in debating the issue under David's terms.
Huh? I have no idea what David's line of argument is as I haven't read his posts.
Again, so it's about the semantics? When it comes to medicine, outcomes are usually the measured goal so it's actually all about the severity or temporal nature of the side effects to those of us who work in the field.
Please reread my comment. It is not about the medicine, the science or the semantics. It's about the attitude of smug certainty of people like @davidallen combined with the attack on the character, sanity or intellectual capacity of anyone who dares let a toe slip past the demarcation line. In my advancing years I am losing patience with the attitude. If you have a quibble with the medical people she links to, that's well and good. You do not resort to character assassination with your quibble. David does.
These people profiteer off character assasination of those involved in the science, medicine and patient care… and you eat it up.
David has hyped his academic prowess and career as middle management at Google with almost every post. That as the foundation of his arrogance leaves him open to ridicule. When he disrespects Wolf's acadmic credentials (which are vastly superior to his) he leaves himself open to ridicule and deservedly so. I remember once he said something about posting a picture of himself in a speedo and I asked him to please not do that. Today I referenced his rotundness. I may have said something about his weight/appearance somewhere else, but it's not something I have done on a regualar basis.
I'm trying to wrap my head around this...
Let me try and explain it in easier to understand terms. David has his medical experts. She has hers. David, who wouldn’t know medical expertise if it bit him in the ass, but does know what his political team expects him to believe so he believes it, and also knows he is expected to trash her character and call anything she says about the subject as “garbage” and ridicule her writings as coming from someone who doesn’t know squat about what she’s talking about because her academic credentials are not medically associated (even though she relies on medical experts for her information and has spent months studying the subject), but somehow thinks his BA in philosophy and three minute Google search establishes his medical bona fides that are not to be questioned. I’m not a medical expert and don’t know the “science” or even which experts to trust. But I do know that David and his “team” have resorted to personal ad hominem attacks on her while she has remained steadfastly focused on a search for the truth. So my inclination is to trust what she says far more than David. It’s hard to find credible someone who uses David’s tactics in a debate. David (or you either it pains me to say) saying he’s pointing out bullshit does not mean that’s what he’s doing. It means he’s sticking with his team’s program and will not pull away from it under any circumstance. That’s what pisses me off.
Can you provide an example? I'm guessing it must have been brutal by yore reaction.
Oh, she has? Did you mean to type "focused on getting clicks?"
Dan, the irony...
I'm not sure an orthopedic surgeon is generally considered a medical expert on infectious disease, vaccines, or anything related to internal medicine. Now if you want to know the best approach for an anterior column acetabular fracture repair or how to manage a Gustilo-Anderson 3a fracture, that's a call to an orthopedic surgeon.
You are misrepresenting what I wrote, whether intentionally or not I don’t know. I don’t know the science (neither does David, by the way). That part you got correct. But nothing I said even implies I “know her ‘facts’ are better than David’s.” I said she is more believable. See the difference?
Right. She's more believable because she gets her medical information from other people just like David does, but she's not David. I definitely see the difference.
What is her main source of income, Dan? I've read enough since entering this thread to know that she uses fear mongering, sensational language, and professional level drama to misrepresent facts to get people to read the stuff she's writing. Like I said, it's click bait.
This kinda implies her "facts" are better than David's "facts." They aren't, but you said don't care about the facts, so that's probably a moot point.
