credulity is cultivated as a vital necessity by all authoritarians, who reflexively reward it with honor and badges. It is so important to state interests, in fact, that no state can sustain itself without a critical mass of adherents.
Most organizations will inexorably cull out any members who fail to display it with sufficient enthusiasm.
In the course of time, this is the reason nations and all other human organizations fail. Building societies on fantasies has no permanent value.
You sit on a little pile of stones prepared for you by your masters and are happy to entertain the occasional passersby who mock you for your position, and you gleefully throw the stones after them, mistaking the fact that the mockers pass on by for some damn kind of success in life.
You are linking to a report on the NIH server, while simultaneously claiming it is being suppressed in the US. Do you truly have no sense of irony?
Those sources include the Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) run by the WHO. Do you trust the WHO? Because, they say that "Adverse event following immunization ... does not necessarily have a causal relationship with the usage of the vaccine. If not rapidly and effectively dealt with, can undermine confidence in a vaccine and ultimately have dramatic consequences for immunization coverage and disease incidence." and "Epidemiological studies are usually needed to assess the causal relationship between the vaccine and the signal.". You didn't link to such a study. If you don't trust the WHO, why are you relying on the reports in the AEFI that they run?
Adverse events following immunization (AEFI)
ACSoMP was established in 2003 to provide advice to WHO, including its Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring (the UMC), and through it to the Member States of WHO, on safety issues relating to medicinal products.www.who.int
However, in the study you did link to, we should not the authors Results:
Your quote-mining and cherry-picking minor points out of the study and out-of-context is, at best, a thunderously inept thinking.
Because viewing it the way the authors intended doesn't fit with your pre-conceived notions? You're just wrong.
Incorrect. The report is quite illuminating. Your discussion of it is completely wrong, but the report itself is pretty good.
You are welcome to your paranoia.
Nothing in your self-description (a lab monkey who worked with chemists) comes across as a scientist in the field of public health. As a data monkey who actually works with public health scientists, among others, I'm at least as qualified as you.
You are welcome to your delusions.
The report I cited paid all the necessary points of homage to the agenda of sustained pandemic authoritarianism. It involved no original study only analysis of other studies. It appeared useful to me as something that in fact discredited your claim that no deaths had occurred as a consequence to, as events caused by, administration of vaccines to patients.
Almost all studies officially accepted and published in "major" or "accepted" journals have to avoid or overcome the criticism of "disinformation" in today's scientific climate.
We have major news retailers who openly profess today that material which is not helpful to the cause of greater good aka global socialism should not be published, and that is the fundamental thesis underlying all political labeling by those in favor of this "Greater Good"
However, even in this kind of suppression, even the advocates of that suppression, appear in this case to be forced to acknowledge the problem of causality linked to the Covid vaccines.
I saw a pretty good effort to provide "answers" in this study to the problem you don't see/won't admit.
.
