FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Jehovah witness refusal of blood vs
Jehovah witness refusal of blood vs
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons " Over 35 years ago a JW friend and I had to have transfusions after giving birth. She wouldn't accept blood but accepted plasma, I was given blood. She recovered quicker. Also, JWs would not have been affected by the blood scandal or CJD. | |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons Over 35 years ago a JW friend and I had to have transfusions after giving birth. She wouldn't accept blood but accepted plasma, I was given blood. She recovered quicker. Also, JWs would not have been affected by the blood scandal or CJD." Whilst I get your point,most people affected by the blood scandal would have died very quickly if they had refused the blood and blood products offered. | |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons Over 35 years ago a JW friend and I had to have transfusions after giving birth. She wouldn't accept blood but accepted plasma, I was given blood. She recovered quicker. Also, JWs would not have been affected by the blood scandal or CJD." comparing vaccines and transfusions are like comparing apple and oranges As for the the red blood cells v plasma 2 product do different things Plasma is good for clotting and replacing small volume but it depends how much they lost if this would be suitable Red cells has obviously the red cell component to restore the balance and volume If they’d lost more then it would need to be red cells Even though there both births they are not a like for like comparison highly unlikely both women lost exactly the same amount of blood Tbh seems a goady thread from a hidden profile Red cells | |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons Over 35 years ago a JW friend and I had to have transfusions after giving birth. She wouldn't accept blood but accepted plasma, I was given blood. She recovered quicker. Also, JWs would not have been affected by the blood scandal or CJD." Also a JW should have rejected the plasma on religious grounds it's no different from accepting blood. | |||
| |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons Over 35 years ago a JW friend and I had to have transfusions after giving birth. She wouldn't accept blood but accepted plasma, I was given blood. She recovered quicker. Also, JWs would not have been affected by the blood scandal or CJD." But surely if they lose too much blood and don't replace it they will die, Mrs x | |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons Over 35 years ago a JW friend and I had to have transfusions after giving birth. She wouldn't accept blood but accepted plasma, I was given blood. She recovered quicker. Also, JWs would not have been affected by the blood scandal or CJD. comparing vaccines and transfusions are like comparing apple and oranges As for the the red blood cells v plasma 2 product do different things Plasma is good for clotting and replacing small volume but it depends how much they lost if this would be suitable Red cells has obviously the red cell component to restore the balance and volume If they’d lost more then it would need to be red cells Even though there both births they are not a like for like comparison highly unlikely both women lost exactly the same amount of blood Tbh seems a goady thread from a hidden profile Red cells " WTF has my profile got to do with anything? Fuck all sunshine! Back to the thread: The comparison, at its most extreme but also superficial (ie on the face of it) is the refusal of potential life saving products. In the past there has been a lot of vitriol against JWs and refusal of blood, I was pointing out there are alternatives. I was pondering as to whether there'll be the same vitriol against those (see the measles thread) who refuse immunisations for their children. You think I'm goading? Bye then! | |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons Over 35 years ago a JW friend and I had to have transfusions after giving birth. She wouldn't accept blood but accepted plasma, I was given blood. She recovered quicker. Also, JWs would not have been affected by the blood scandal or CJD. Also a JW should have rejected the plasma on religious grounds it's no different from accepting blood." With her husband and father as elders, I'm sure it was thoroughly debated as whether it should be accepted or not. | |||
"I think just looking at the blood refusal aspect is just a very narrow element of the wider issue in the Jehovah's witness faith and the way people are treated if they try to change their mind once practicing. Families, friendships destroyed along with the mental well being of the people involved all to leverage control of people. Just another point on their kids on medical issues luckily they cannot force their medical bias onto their children ultimately because their children can be made wards of court in cases where withdrawing medical assistance would cause the children harm. Far more damaging is the indoctrination of the young people and their lack of allowed free thinking. " That'll be another thread and in the "medical" section 
But feel free to go on a tangent.  | |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons Over 35 years ago a JW friend and I had to have transfusions after giving birth. She wouldn't accept blood but accepted plasma, I was given blood. She recovered quicker. Also, JWs would not have been affected by the blood scandal or CJD.But surely if they lose too much blood and don't replace it they will die, Mrs x" Hence the plasma. | |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons " Or possibly Mormons? | |||
| |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons Over 35 years ago a JW friend and I had to have transfusions after giving birth. She wouldn't accept blood but accepted plasma, I was given blood. She recovered quicker. Also, JWs would not have been affected by the blood scandal or CJD.But surely if they lose too much blood and don't replace it they will die, Mrs x Hence the plasma." Hilarious you do know plasma is a blood component/product | |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons Over 35 years ago a JW friend and I had to have transfusions after giving birth. She wouldn't accept blood but accepted plasma, I was given blood. She recovered quicker. Also, JWs would not have been affected by the blood scandal or CJD." Interesting that she accepted the plasma as really she should not have done. | |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons Over 35 years ago a JW friend and I had to have transfusions after giving birth. She wouldn't accept blood but accepted plasma, I was given blood. She recovered quicker. Also, JWs would not have been affected by the blood scandal or CJD. Interesting that she accepted the plasma as really she should not have done." with religion there is always the opportunity to interpret things in your favour. | |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons Over 35 years ago a JW friend and I had to have transfusions after giving birth. She wouldn't accept blood but accepted plasma, I was given blood. She recovered quicker. Also, JWs would not have been affected by the blood scandal or CJD. Interesting that she accepted the plasma as really she should not have done. with religion there is always the opportunity to interpret things in your favour. " Not since 1945, when their religion ruled upon this and blood plasma should never been used. It would lead to someone being 'shunned' from the church if they chose to take it. Mrs x | |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons Over 35 years ago a JW friend and I had to have transfusions after giving birth. She wouldn't accept blood but accepted plasma, I was given blood. She recovered quicker. Also, JWs would not have been affected by the blood scandal or CJD. Interesting that she accepted the plasma as really she should not have done. with religion there is always the opportunity to interpret things in your favour. Not since 1945, when their religion ruled upon this and blood plasma should never been used. It would lead to someone being 'shunned' from the church if they chose to take it. Mrs x" I didn't know that  | |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons Over 35 years ago a JW friend and I had to have transfusions after giving birth. She wouldn't accept blood but accepted plasma, I was given blood. She recovered quicker. Also, JWs would not have been affected by the blood scandal or CJD.But surely if they lose too much blood and don't replace it they will die, Mrs x Hence the plasma. Hilarious you do know plasma is a blood component/product " I'm a HCP. You work it out. | |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons Over 35 years ago a JW friend and I had to have transfusions after giving birth. She wouldn't accept blood but accepted plasma, I was given blood. She recovered quicker. Also, JWs would not have been affected by the blood scandal or CJD. Interesting that she accepted the plasma as really she should not have done. with religion there is always the opportunity to interpret things in your favour. Not since 1945, when their religion ruled upon this and blood plasma should never been used. It would lead to someone being 'shunned' from the church if they chose to take it. Mrs x I didn't know that "She also told me me plasma was used in transplant procedures (it may be that it was plasma volume expanders, I would not have registered the difference back then). | |||
| |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons Over 35 years ago a JW friend and I had to have transfusions after giving birth. She wouldn't accept blood but accepted plasma, I was given blood. She recovered quicker. Also, JWs would not have been affected by the blood scandal or CJD.But surely if they lose too much blood and don't replace it they will die, Mrs x Hence the plasma. Hilarious you do know plasma is a blood component/product I'm a HCP. You work it out." Your so curt and rude I’m presuming consultant | |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons Over 35 years ago a JW friend and I had to have transfusions after giving birth. She wouldn't accept blood but accepted plasma, I was given blood. She recovered quicker. Also, JWs would not have been affected by the blood scandal or CJD. Interesting that she accepted the plasma as really she should not have done. with religion there is always the opportunity to interpret things in your favour. Not since 1945, when their religion ruled upon this and blood plasma should never been used. It would lead to someone being 'shunned' from the church if they chose to take it. Mrs x I didn't know that
She also told me me plasma was used in transplant procedures (it may be that it was plasma volume expanders, I would not have registered the difference back then)."From a religious point they cannot take plasma, Mrs x | |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons Over 35 years ago a JW friend and I had to have transfusions after giving birth. She wouldn't accept blood but accepted plasma, I was given blood. She recovered quicker. Also, JWs would not have been affected by the blood scandal or CJD. Interesting that she accepted the plasma as really she should not have done." I'm sure she will say a hail Mary or two and all will be forgiven. Or whatever the equivalent " get out of jail card" is for jehovah sins. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Wise people, I wouldn't accept blood now either " So if you needed emergency surgery you'd choose death over recovery then? Mrs x | |||
"JW’s have some very strict lines they will not cross. I knew a young woman who was permanently excluded from all contact with family and the greater community because she started a relationship with an outsider." really, I know avfair few who have married outside of their own religion | |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons Over 35 years ago a JW friend and I had to have transfusions after giving birth. She wouldn't accept blood but accepted plasma, I was given blood. She recovered quicker. Also, JWs would not have been affected by the blood scandal or CJD." Unless they ate tainted beef, I lived in the UK for a while during the 90s and as a result I am not allowed to donate blood in Ireland due to the the risk that I may have consumed tainted beef | |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons Over 35 years ago a JW friend and I had to have transfusions after giving birth. She wouldn't accept blood but accepted plasma, I was given blood. She recovered quicker. Also, JWs would not have been affected by the blood scandal or CJD." CJD mainly came from growth hormones made via bovine pituary gland plus eating tainted beef so JW would not have dodged it at all. | |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons Over 35 years ago a JW friend and I had to have transfusions after giving birth. She wouldn't accept blood but accepted plasma, I was given blood. She recovered quicker. Also, JWs would not have been affected by the blood scandal or CJD. CJD mainly came from growth hormones made via bovine pituary gland plus eating tainted beef so JW would not have dodged it at all." Vegan JWs | |||
"Wise people, I wouldn't accept blood now either " If I'm not mistaken aren't you the chap who stated on a previous thread you would not accept radiotherapy or chemotherapy and now not accepting a blood transfusion. | |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons Over 35 years ago a JW friend and I had to have transfusions after giving birth. She wouldn't accept blood but accepted plasma, I was given blood. She recovered quicker. Also, JWs would not have been affected by the blood scandal or CJD. Interesting that she accepted the plasma as really she should not have done. with religion there is always the opportunity to interpret things in your favour. Not since 1945, when their religion ruled upon this and blood plasma should never been used. It would lead to someone being 'shunned' from the church if they chose to take it. Mrs x I didn't know that
She also told me me plasma was used in transplant procedures (it may be that it was plasma volume expanders, I would not have registered the difference back then).From a religious point they cannot take plasma, Mrs x"Apart from plasma volume expanders. | |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons Over 35 years ago a JW friend and I had to have transfusions after giving birth. She wouldn't accept blood but accepted plasma, I was given blood. She recovered quicker. Also, JWs would not have been affected by the blood scandal or CJD.But surely if they lose too much blood and don't replace it they will die, Mrs x Hence the plasma. Hilarious you do know plasma is a blood component/product I'm a HCP. You work it out. Your so curt and rude I’m presuming consultant " Perhaps if you had been pleasant in your posts to me I would have responded likewise. Or do you not recognise when you behave thus? | |||
| |||
"The vaccine never ever stopped the spread, it was a lie." The MMR vaccine most certainly did stop the spread of measles mumps and rubella. | |||
"The vaccine never ever stopped the spread, it was a lie." Which vaccine didn't stop the spread of what? | |||
"Jehovah witness refusal of blood for themselves and their children vs parental refusal of vaccines for their children. Food for thought?" I’d argue that one is a religious belief which might potentially only harm the refuser in the event that a transfusion might otherwise be life-saving. The other is a moronic attitude which Siri ga from a lack of understanding and/or trust in medical science that will potentially harm others (if herd immunity is not attained, the clinically vulnerable will suffer.) These people typically prefer to place their trust in Karen and Tracy on Facebook. | |||
| |||
"The vaccine never ever stopped the spread, it was a lie." Our resident medical expert there. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... " Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? | |||
| |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? " Presumably yes they can, how else do they tell if people who have died or get ill have NOT been vaccinated for whatever. | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? Presumably yes they can, how else do they tell if people who have died or get ill have NOT been vaccinated for whatever. " They can do this but it would be difficult and costly to trace this sort of thing so it isn't done. | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? " No. The transfusion services database and the main NHS one aren't linked. | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? " You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. | |||
| |||
"A court order can force a child to have blood but not to have the Covid jab (but can be enforced for other jabs if in the public interest)" Yes but when this has been done the child had often been ostracised by their community | |||
| |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons." Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? " Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA | |||
| |||
| |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA" I couldn't find anything about blood transfusion from a vaccinated person but the term 'spikeopathy ' did often have alleged preceding it. | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA" Main author of this paper is a psychiatrist. | |||
"Obv… It’s like the ppl still wearing masks. Believing vaccinating children with THE mRNA. " Vaccine or no vaccine, you know you've got mrna in you body, yes? J | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA" You believe in conspiracies. Basically like believing in fairies. And clearly you can’t distinguish between solid scientific evidence and bollocks published by crooks | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA Main author of this paper is a psychiatrist." I love these dick measuring debates. My dad's bigger than your dad. Believe the scientists until it's one you choose not to be believe. It's Complex to find credible sources for us novices. | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA Main author of this paper is a psychiatrist. I love these dick measuring debates. My dad's bigger than your dad. Believe the scientists until it's one you choose not to be believe. It's Complex to find credible sources for us novices. " He is a psychiatrist what he knows about immunology you can probably write on a postage stamp in big writing. We all should read all sources and question them equally, maybe question things you tend to agree with even more. There are massive red flags in this paper.Firstly it is really badly written. The spikeopathy term isn't great and screams click bait. | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA You believe in conspiracies. Basically like believing in fairies. And clearly you can’t distinguish between solid scientific evidence and bollocks published by crooks" All of this paper used peer reviewed data. Incidentally, Christopher Langan, americas highest IQ used Covid vaccines as an example of cognitive dissonance, he said “anyone who still believes Covid vaccines are safe or effective is a moron and an imbecile”. I understand it’s not easy to accept that you were wrong about them, especially as that may mean your health will suffer, but stop cheerleading something you don’t understand. | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA You believe in conspiracies. Basically like believing in fairies. And clearly you can’t distinguish between solid scientific evidence and bollocks published by crooks All of this paper used peer reviewed data. Incidentally, Christopher Langan, americas highest IQ used Covid vaccines as an example of cognitive dissonance, he said “anyone who still believes Covid vaccines are safe or effective is a moron and an imbecile”. I understand it’s not easy to accept that you were wrong about them, especially as that may mean your health will suffer, but stop cheerleading something you don’t understand." The last six words are great advice. Ironically....... J | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA You believe in conspiracies. Basically like believing in fairies. And clearly you can’t distinguish between solid scientific evidence and bollocks published by crooks All of this paper used peer reviewed data. Incidentally, Christopher Langan, americas highest IQ used Covid vaccines as an example of cognitive dissonance, he said “anyone who still believes Covid vaccines are safe or effective is a moron and an imbecile”. I understand it’s not easy to accept that you were wrong about them, especially as that may mean your health will suffer, but stop cheerleading something you don’t understand. The last six words are great advice. Ironically....... J" Well yes.. A little of someone else's knowledge can be a dangerous thing | |||
"In the past there has been a lot of vitriol against JWs and refusal of blood" Also in the past and still now there is a lot of vitriol towards those people who chose not to be vaccinated for COVID-19 because of personal reasons. Even death threats aimed at them. This doesn’t seem fair. | |||
"Jehovah witness refusal of blood for themselves and their children vs parental refusal of vaccines for their children. Food for thought?" Due to the post covid "anti-vax" momentum, various previously well controlled diseases (such as measles and Rubella) are now becoming problematic. On the other hand, it believe that making things mandatory is a dangerous path to take. Unfortunately, education has been damaged by social media. Cal | |||
"One is a religious belief. The other usually isn't. Refusing blood won't risk spreading harmful diseases to vulnerable people. Refusing vaccinations will. " There have been issues where blood has spread infections, but die without an infusion and a small chance of an infection, I will go with the small chance. Refusing a transfusion is a personal matter, but refusing a vaccination endangers others. Should we require everyone to be vaccinated, we did once, and smallpox was wiped out. | |||
"but refusing a vaccination endangers others." Does it though. The person who has been vaccinated against any disease is protected. The person who has not been vaccinated is the vulnerable one surely. 🤷♂️ | |||
"but refusing a vaccination endangers others. Does it though. The person who has been vaccinated against any disease is protected. The person who has not been vaccinated is the vulnerable one surely. 🤷♂️" Yes, because those who are capable of receiving a vaccination & choose not to, then put the vulnerable at greater risk. Those who for medical reasons cannot recieve the vaccine. | |||
"then put the vulnerable at greater risk." Surely the vulnerable have been vaccinated. 🤷♂️ | |||
"then put the vulnerable at greater risk. Surely the vulnerable have been vaccinated. 🤷♂️" Not all of them. Our daughter caught measles from an unvaccinated person before she was eligible for it herself. She was very ill. | |||
| |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA Main author of this paper is a psychiatrist. I love these dick measuring debates. My dad's bigger than your dad. Believe the scientists until it's one you choose not to be believe. It's Complex to find credible sources for us novices. He is a psychiatrist what he knows about immunology you can probably write on a postage stamp in big writing. We all should read all sources and question them equally, maybe question things you tend to agree with even more. There are massive red flags in this paper.Firstly it is really badly written. The spikeopathy term isn't great and screams click bait. " There are 7 authors who wrote and reviewed this paper. You sound desperate to discredit work you are afraid to hear. There are lots of credible papers which highlight how hazardous spike protein is. It’s old news. | |||
"I'm a HCP. You work it out." HCP “In essence, it's a broad term for anyone with a role in healthcare delivery.” Like. Someone who works at the tills in a pharmacy. Can you be more specific. | |||
| |||
"It's up to the individual I guess and as a parent you decide what's best for children " You'd think that would be the case but seems many feel the need to "help" with your personal choices | |||
"It's up to the individual I guess and as a parent you decide what's best for children You'd think that would be the case but seems many feel the need to "help" with your personal choices " 
A lot of people have “helped” me with my choices. | |||
| |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA Main author of this paper is a psychiatrist. I love these dick measuring debates. My dad's bigger than your dad. Believe the scientists until it's one you choose not to be believe. It's Complex to find credible sources for us novices. He is a psychiatrist what he knows about immunology you can probably write on a postage stamp in big writing. We all should read all sources and question them equally, maybe question things you tend to agree with even more. There are massive red flags in this paper.Firstly it is really badly written. The spikeopathy term isn't great and screams click bait. There are 7 authors who wrote and reviewed this paper. You sound desperate to discredit work you are afraid to hear. There are lots of credible papers which highlight how hazardous spike protein is. It’s old news." The number of authors of any report, doesn't determine its quality or veracity, for example. It's very easy to find a large number of antivaxers that have amassed since the fraudulent Wakefield scandal. The scientific process being followed, peer review in reputable professional journals is the basic foundation of good practice, of course. When the world is awash with charlatans, many of them actively working to gain financially and otherwise from the misery and deaths of others, it's essential to guard against their harm. Some of them are antivaxers - we all need to make sure that they don't cause further damage. | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA Main author of this paper is a psychiatrist. I love these dick measuring debates. My dad's bigger than your dad. Believe the scientists until it's one you choose not to be believe. It's Complex to find credible sources for us novices. He is a psychiatrist what he knows about immunology you can probably write on a postage stamp in big writing. We all should read all sources and question them equally, maybe question things you tend to agree with even more. There are massive red flags in this paper.Firstly it is really badly written. The spikeopathy term isn't great and screams click bait. There are 7 authors who wrote and reviewed this paper. You sound desperate to discredit work you are afraid to hear. There are lots of credible papers which highlight how hazardous spike protein is. It’s old news. The number of authors of any report, doesn't determine its quality or veracity, for example. It's very easy to find a large number of antivaxers that have amassed since the fraudulent Wakefield scandal. The scientific process being followed, peer review in reputable professional journals is the basic foundation of good practice, of course. When the world is awash with charlatans, many of them actively working to gain financially and otherwise from the misery and deaths of others, it's essential to guard against their harm. Some of them are antivaxers - we all need to make sure that they don't cause further damage. "Which of those 7 authors who qualify to write and publish on PubMed are you qualified to discredit? | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA Main author of this paper is a psychiatrist. I love these dick measuring debates. My dad's bigger than your dad. Believe the scientists until it's one you choose not to be believe. It's Complex to find credible sources for us novices. He is a psychiatrist what he knows about immunology you can probably write on a postage stamp in big writing. We all should read all sources and question them equally, maybe question things you tend to agree with even more. There are massive red flags in this paper.Firstly it is really badly written. The spikeopathy term isn't great and screams click bait. There are 7 authors who wrote and reviewed this paper. You sound desperate to discredit work you are afraid to hear. There are lots of credible papers which highlight how hazardous spike protein is. It’s old news. The number of authors of any report, doesn't determine its quality or veracity, for example. It's very easy to find a large number of antivaxers that have amassed since the fraudulent Wakefield scandal. The scientific process being followed, peer review in reputable professional journals is the basic foundation of good practice, of course. When the world is awash with charlatans, many of them actively working to gain financially and otherwise from the misery and deaths of others, it's essential to guard against their harm. Some of them are antivaxers - we all need to make sure that they don't cause further damage.
Which of those 7 authors who qualify to write and publish on PubMed are you qualified to discredit?"Which authors are you qualified to credit? What's your experience in their fields, how did you review and cross check those you choose to believe? J | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA Main author of this paper is a psychiatrist. I love these dick measuring debates. My dad's bigger than your dad. Believe the scientists until it's one you choose not to be believe. It's Complex to find credible sources for us novices. He is a psychiatrist what he knows about immunology you can probably write on a postage stamp in big writing. We all should read all sources and question them equally, maybe question things you tend to agree with even more. There are massive red flags in this paper.Firstly it is really badly written. The spikeopathy term isn't great and screams click bait. There are 7 authors who wrote and reviewed this paper. You sound desperate to discredit work you are afraid to hear. There are lots of credible papers which highlight how hazardous spike protein is. It’s old news. The number of authors of any report, doesn't determine its quality or veracity, for example. It's very easy to find a large number of antivaxers that have amassed since the fraudulent Wakefield scandal. The scientific process being followed, peer review in reputable professional journals is the basic foundation of good practice, of course. When the world is awash with charlatans, many of them actively working to gain financially and otherwise from the misery and deaths of others, it's essential to guard against their harm. Some of them are antivaxers - we all need to make sure that they don't cause further damage.
Which of those 7 authors who qualify to write and publish on PubMed are you qualified to discredit?
Which authors are you qualified to credit?
What's your experience in their fields, how did you review and cross check those you choose to believe?
J"They all qualify to publish on PubMed. That in itself is a standard. We were told to trust the science. These are the scientists. | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA Main author of this paper is a psychiatrist. I love these dick measuring debates. My dad's bigger than your dad. Believe the scientists until it's one you choose not to be believe. It's Complex to find credible sources for us novices. He is a psychiatrist what he knows about immunology you can probably write on a postage stamp in big writing. We all should read all sources and question them equally, maybe question things you tend to agree with even more. There are massive red flags in this paper.Firstly it is really badly written. The spikeopathy term isn't great and screams click bait. There are 7 authors who wrote and reviewed this paper. You sound desperate to discredit work you are afraid to hear. There are lots of credible papers which highlight how hazardous spike protein is. It’s old news. The number of authors of any report, doesn't determine its quality or veracity, for example. It's very easy to find a large number of antivaxers that have amassed since the fraudulent Wakefield scandal. The scientific process being followed, peer review in reputable professional journals is the basic foundation of good practice, of course. When the world is awash with charlatans, many of them actively working to gain financially and otherwise from the misery and deaths of others, it's essential to guard against their harm. Some of them are antivaxers - we all need to make sure that they don't cause further damage.
Which of those 7 authors who qualify to write and publish on PubMed are you qualified to discredit?
Which authors are you qualified to credit?
What's your experience in their fields, how did you review and cross check those you choose to believe?
J
They all qualify to publish on PubMed. That in itself is a standard. We were told to trust the science. These are the scientists."Personally I'd trust scientists with expertise in that particular field. As has already mentioned, one of them is a psychiatrist. Can you answer my question, what's your experience in the field? J | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA Main author of this paper is a psychiatrist. I love these dick measuring debates. My dad's bigger than your dad. Believe the scientists until it's one you choose not to be believe. It's Complex to find credible sources for us novices. He is a psychiatrist what he knows about immunology you can probably write on a postage stamp in big writing. We all should read all sources and question them equally, maybe question things you tend to agree with even more. There are massive red flags in this paper.Firstly it is really badly written. The spikeopathy term isn't great and screams click bait. There are 7 authors who wrote and reviewed this paper. You sound desperate to discredit work you are afraid to hear. There are lots of credible papers which highlight how hazardous spike protein is. It’s old news. The number of authors of any report, doesn't determine its quality or veracity, for example. It's very easy to find a large number of antivaxers that have amassed since the fraudulent Wakefield scandal. The scientific process being followed, peer review in reputable professional journals is the basic foundation of good practice, of course. When the world is awash with charlatans, many of them actively working to gain financially and otherwise from the misery and deaths of others, it's essential to guard against their harm. Some of them are antivaxers - we all need to make sure that they don't cause further damage.
Which of those 7 authors who qualify to write and publish on PubMed are you qualified to discredit?
Which authors are you qualified to credit?
What's your experience in their fields, how did you review and cross check those you choose to believe?
J
They all qualify to publish on PubMed. That in itself is a standard. We were told to trust the science. These are the scientists.
Personally I'd trust scientists with expertise in that particular field.
As has already mentioned, one of them is a psychiatrist.
Can you answer my question, what's your experience in the field?
J"To become a psychiatrist, first you must train for 5 years to become a qualified medical doctor, 4 if you fast track, then 3 years to specialise. Certainly relevant expertise for studying harm to the body. I have no experience in the field whatsoever. I have done research professionally so I understand scientific method and well enough to have been offered 2 PhD’s in my life, both in fields that I have no experience. To be fair, my qualifications are irrelevant, you are shooting the messenger. | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA Main author of this paper is a psychiatrist. I love these dick measuring debates. My dad's bigger than your dad. Believe the scientists until it's one you choose not to be believe. It's Complex to find credible sources for us novices. He is a psychiatrist what he knows about immunology you can probably write on a postage stamp in big writing. We all should read all sources and question them equally, maybe question things you tend to agree with even more. There are massive red flags in this paper.Firstly it is really badly written. The spikeopathy term isn't great and screams click bait. There are 7 authors who wrote and reviewed this paper. You sound desperate to discredit work you are afraid to hear. There are lots of credible papers which highlight how hazardous spike protein is. It’s old news. The number of authors of any report, doesn't determine its quality or veracity, for example. It's very easy to find a large number of antivaxers that have amassed since the fraudulent Wakefield scandal. The scientific process being followed, peer review in reputable professional journals is the basic foundation of good practice, of course. When the world is awash with charlatans, many of them actively working to gain financially and otherwise from the misery and deaths of others, it's essential to guard against their harm. Some of them are antivaxers - we all need to make sure that they don't cause further damage.
Which of those 7 authors who qualify to write and publish on PubMed are you qualified to discredit?
Which authors are you qualified to credit?
What's your experience in their fields, how did you review and cross check those you choose to believe?
J
They all qualify to publish on PubMed. That in itself is a standard. We were told to trust the science. These are the scientists.
Personally I'd trust scientists with expertise in that particular field.
As has already mentioned, one of them is a psychiatrist.
Can you answer my question, what's your experience in the field?
J
To become a psychiatrist, first you must train for 5 years to become a qualified medical doctor, 4 if you fast track, then 3 years to specialise. Certainly relevant expertise for studying harm to the body.
I have no experience in the field whatsoever. I have done research professionally so I understand scientific method and well enough to have been offered 2 PhD’s in my life, both in fields that I have no experience. To be fair, my qualifications are irrelevant, you are shooting the messenger.
"As you say, 4 years to specialise. The author in point here specialises in psychiatry, not epidemiology, so I fail to see why you'd take his view, as opposed to some who took 4 years to specialise in epidemiology. How did you manage to get offered 2 PhDs in fields you have no experience in? That's intriguing. I'd be interested in understanding what you consider research. J | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA Main author of this paper is a psychiatrist. I love these dick measuring debates. My dad's bigger than your dad. Believe the scientists until it's one you choose not to be believe. It's Complex to find credible sources for us novices. He is a psychiatrist what he knows about immunology you can probably write on a postage stamp in big writing. We all should read all sources and question them equally, maybe question things you tend to agree with even more. There are massive red flags in this paper.Firstly it is really badly written. The spikeopathy term isn't great and screams click bait. There are 7 authors who wrote and reviewed this paper. You sound desperate to discredit work you are afraid to hear. There are lots of credible papers which highlight how hazardous spike protein is. It’s old news. The number of authors of any report, doesn't determine its quality or veracity, for example. It's very easy to find a large number of antivaxers that have amassed since the fraudulent Wakefield scandal. The scientific process being followed, peer review in reputable professional journals is the basic foundation of good practice, of course. When the world is awash with charlatans, many of them actively working to gain financially and otherwise from the misery and deaths of others, it's essential to guard against their harm. Some of them are antivaxers - we all need to make sure that they don't cause further damage.
Which of those 7 authors who qualify to write and publish on PubMed are you qualified to discredit?"You might have misread what I wrote. Perhaps read it again. On a separate point, this nonsense of spike proteins should be put into the bin, where it belongs. 🗑️ | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA Main author of this paper is a psychiatrist. I love these dick measuring debates. My dad's bigger than your dad. Believe the scientists until it's one you choose not to be believe. It's Complex to find credible sources for us novices. He is a psychiatrist what he knows about immunology you can probably write on a postage stamp in big writing. We all should read all sources and question them equally, maybe question things you tend to agree with even more. There are massive red flags in this paper.Firstly it is really badly written. The spikeopathy term isn't great and screams click bait. There are 7 authors who wrote and reviewed this paper. You sound desperate to discredit work you are afraid to hear. There are lots of credible papers which highlight how hazardous spike protein is. It’s old news. The number of authors of any report, doesn't determine its quality or veracity, for example. It's very easy to find a large number of antivaxers that have amassed since the fraudulent Wakefield scandal. The scientific process being followed, peer review in reputable professional journals is the basic foundation of good practice, of course. When the world is awash with charlatans, many of them actively working to gain financially and otherwise from the misery and deaths of others, it's essential to guard against their harm. Some of them are antivaxers - we all need to make sure that they don't cause further damage.
Which of those 7 authors who qualify to write and publish on PubMed are you qualified to discredit?
Which authors are you qualified to credit?
What's your experience in their fields, how did you review and cross check those you choose to believe?
J
They all qualify to publish on PubMed. That in itself is a standard. We were told to trust the science. These are the scientists.
Personally I'd trust scientists with expertise in that particular field.
As has already mentioned, one of them is a psychiatrist.
Can you answer my question, what's your experience in the field?
J
To become a psychiatrist, first you must train for 5 years to become a qualified medical doctor, 4 if you fast track, then 3 years to specialise. Certainly relevant expertise for studying harm to the body.
I have no experience in the field whatsoever. I have done research professionally so I understand scientific method and well enough to have been offered 2 PhD’s in my life, both in fields that I have no experience. To be fair, my qualifications are irrelevant, you are shooting the messenger.
As you say, 4 years to specialise. The author in point here specialises in psychiatry, not epidemiology, so I fail to see why you'd take his view, as opposed to some who took 4 years to specialise in epidemiology.
How did you manage to get offered 2 PhDs in fields you have no experience in? That's intriguing.
I'd be interested in understanding what you consider research.
J"The paper is not about epidemiology it’s about physiological damage caused by a foreign body. Both of the Phd offers came from meeting people doing research, discussing their work and offering solutions to problems they were too close to. One was studying how trees communicate, that was a great offer but I’d have had to write 2 learned documents a year in Swedish . The other was in sonar development and I didn’t fancy moving to Southampton. My own work was in phase linear acoustic arrays. Nothing published, it was all intellectual property. | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA Main author of this paper is a psychiatrist. I love these dick measuring debates. My dad's bigger than your dad. Believe the scientists until it's one you choose not to be believe. It's Complex to find credible sources for us novices. He is a psychiatrist what he knows about immunology you can probably write on a postage stamp in big writing. We all should read all sources and question them equally, maybe question things you tend to agree with even more. There are massive red flags in this paper.Firstly it is really badly written. The spikeopathy term isn't great and screams click bait. " And you know what they know about immunology as a fact? Or are you making assumptions? Isn't making assumptions contrary to scientific method.? | |||
"then put the vulnerable at greater risk. Surely the vulnerable have been vaccinated. 🤷♂️ Not all of them. Our daughter caught measles from an unvaccinated person before she was eligible for it herself. She was very ill. " Not wanting to get personal but using this as an example. Why is it that those who haven't had it for wbatever reason seem to expect others to have had it? Some people can't have it because it will make them ill and yet we expect others to take the vaccine that is too dangerous to give to person A and yet expect person B to take the dangerous vaccine and are critical of them if they choose not to? Seems a strange logic/thought process | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA Main author of this paper is a psychiatrist. I love these dick measuring debates. My dad's bigger than your dad. Believe the scientists until it's one you choose not to be believe. It's Complex to find credible sources for us novices. He is a psychiatrist what he knows about immunology you can probably write on a postage stamp in big writing. We all should read all sources and question them equally, maybe question things you tend to agree with even more. There are massive red flags in this paper.Firstly it is really badly written. The spikeopathy term isn't great and screams click bait. There are 7 authors who wrote and reviewed this paper. You sound desperate to discredit work you are afraid to hear. There are lots of credible papers which highlight how hazardous spike protein is. It’s old news. The number of authors of any report, doesn't determine its quality or veracity, for example. It's very easy to find a large number of antivaxers that have amassed since the fraudulent Wakefield scandal. The scientific process being followed, peer review in reputable professional journals is the basic foundation of good practice, of course. When the world is awash with charlatans, many of them actively working to gain financially and otherwise from the misery and deaths of others, it's essential to guard against their harm. Some of them are antivaxers - we all need to make sure that they don't cause further damage.
Which of those 7 authors who qualify to write and publish on PubMed are you qualified to discredit?
Which authors are you qualified to credit?
What's your experience in their fields, how did you review and cross check those you choose to believe?
J
They all qualify to publish on PubMed. That in itself is a standard. We were told to trust the science. These are the scientists."Not those scientists though... Only trust the good ones. | |||
"then put the vulnerable at greater risk. Surely the vulnerable have been vaccinated. 🤷♂️ Not all of them. Our daughter caught measles from an unvaccinated person before she was eligible for it herself. She was very ill. Not wanting to get personal but using this as an example. Why is it that those who haven't had it for wbatever reason seem to expect others to have had it? Some people can't have it because it will make them ill and yet we expect others to take the vaccine that is too dangerous to give to person A and yet expect person B to take the dangerous vaccine and are critical of them if they choose not to? Seems a strange logic/thought process " I was only pointing out that all vulnerable people e.g. our daughter won't have been vaccinated. For all I know the person she caught it from was unable to have the vaccination too or just didn't want to. I don't think I've ever suggested that anyone who would potentially suffer harm should be vaccinated to keep other people safe 🤔 | |||
"then put the vulnerable at greater risk. Surely the vulnerable have been vaccinated. 🤷♂️ Not all of them. Our daughter caught measles from an unvaccinated person before she was eligible for it herself. She was very ill. Not wanting to get personal but using this as an example. Why is it that those who haven't had it for wbatever reason seem to expect others to have had it? Some people can't have it because it will make them ill and yet we expect others to take the vaccine that is too dangerous to give to person A and yet expect person B to take the dangerous vaccine and are critical of them if they choose not to? Seems a strange logic/thought process I was only pointing out that all vulnerable people e.g. our daughter won't have been vaccinated. For all I know the person she caught it from was unable to have the vaccination too or just didn't want to. I don't think I've ever suggested that anyone who would potentially suffer harm should be vaccinated to keep other people safe 🤔" That's exactly the point... We can either choose to force people to have vaccines and then accept the consequences...and have adequate compensation for those that suffer as a consequence.. And that includes all visitors and all immigrants and holiday makers... Or we can accept it's not a perfect world and if someone chooses to have a vaccine then they do and if they choose not to or can't then they don't. But being critical of others for reasons we don't (rightly) even know is really unhelpful and divisive. And as much as "anti vax" is harmful generally, so the mudslingers and piss takers are just as harmful and I wonder if anyone has ever changed their mind juts because someone has bullied them, taken the piss our of them and or belittled their choices. | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA Main author of this paper is a psychiatrist. I love these dick measuring debates. My dad's bigger than your dad. Believe the scientists until it's one you choose not to be believe. It's Complex to find credible sources for us novices. He is a psychiatrist what he knows about immunology you can probably write on a postage stamp in big writing. We all should read all sources and question them equally, maybe question things you tend to agree with even more. There are massive red flags in this paper.Firstly it is really badly written. The spikeopathy term isn't great and screams click bait. There are 7 authors who wrote and reviewed this paper. You sound desperate to discredit work you are afraid to hear. There are lots of credible papers which highlight how hazardous spike protein is. It’s old news. The number of authors of any report, doesn't determine its quality or veracity, for example. It's very easy to find a large number of antivaxers that have amassed since the fraudulent Wakefield scandal. The scientific process being followed, peer review in reputable professional journals is the basic foundation of good practice, of course. When the world is awash with charlatans, many of them actively working to gain financially and otherwise from the misery and deaths of others, it's essential to guard against their harm. Some of them are antivaxers - we all need to make sure that they don't cause further damage.
Which of those 7 authors who qualify to write and publish on PubMed are you qualified to discredit?
Which authors are you qualified to credit?
What's your experience in their fields, how did you review and cross check those you choose to believe?
J
They all qualify to publish on PubMed. That in itself is a standard. We were told to trust the science. These are the scientists.
Personally I'd trust scientists with expertise in that particular field.
As has already mentioned, one of them is a psychiatrist.
Can you answer my question, what's your experience in the field?
J
To become a psychiatrist, first you must train for 5 years to become a qualified medical doctor, 4 if you fast track, then 3 years to specialise. Certainly relevant expertise for studying harm to the body.
I have no experience in the field whatsoever. I have done research professionally so I understand scientific method and well enough to have been offered 2 PhD’s in my life, both in fields that I have no experience. To be fair, my qualifications are irrelevant, you are shooting the messenger.
As you say, 4 years to specialise. The author in point here specialises in psychiatry, not epidemiology, so I fail to see why you'd take his view, as opposed to some who took 4 years to specialise in epidemiology.
How did you manage to get offered 2 PhDs in fields you have no experience in? That's intriguing.
I'd be interested in understanding what you consider research.
J
The paper is not about epidemiology it’s about physiological damage caused by a foreign body.
Both of the Phd offers came from meeting people doing research, discussing their work and offering solutions to problems they were too close to. One was studying how trees communicate, that was a great offer but I’d have had to write 2 learned documents a year in Swedish . The other was in sonar development and I didn’t fancy moving to Southampton. My own work was in phase linear acoustic arrays. Nothing published, it was all intellectual property."You don't get "offered a PhD, let alone 2 in subjects you've not submitted your own papers on. For anyone interested in the PhD pathway; To obtain a PhD, you typically need to complete a master's degree, conduct independent research, write a thesis, and defend your research in an oral examination. The process involves applying to a PhD program, researching a suitable topic, developing a research proposal, and seeking funding. Complete a Master's Degree: While not always mandatory, a master's degree is often a prerequisite for PhD programs. Identify a PhD Program: Research universities and programs offering PhDs in your desired field. Develop a Research Proposal: This outlines your proposed research topic, questions, and methodology. Find a Supervisor: Contact potential supervisors whose research aligns with your proposal and discuss your ideas. Apply to PhD Programs: Submit your application materials, including your research proposal, transcripts, letters of recommendation, and possibly a GRE score. Get Accepted: If accepted, you'll be registered as a PhD student and begin your research journey. Complete Coursework: Some programs require coursework, while others focus on research. Conduct Independent Research: Under the guidance of your supervisor, you'll conduct your own research, analyze data, and contribute to your field. Write a Thesis: The culmination of your research is a doctoral thesis, a substantial and original contribution to knowledge. Defend Your Thesis (Viva Voce): You'll present your research to an examination panel and answer questions in an oral examination. Receive Your PhD: Upon successful completion of your thesis and viva, you'll receive your Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree. J | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA Main author of this paper is a psychiatrist. I love these dick measuring debates. My dad's bigger than your dad. Believe the scientists until it's one you choose not to be believe. It's Complex to find credible sources for us novices. He is a psychiatrist what he knows about immunology you can probably write on a postage stamp in big writing. We all should read all sources and question them equally, maybe question things you tend to agree with even more. There are massive red flags in this paper.Firstly it is really badly written. The spikeopathy term isn't great and screams click bait. There are 7 authors who wrote and reviewed this paper. You sound desperate to discredit work you are afraid to hear. There are lots of credible papers which highlight how hazardous spike protein is. It’s old news. The number of authors of any report, doesn't determine its quality or veracity, for example. It's very easy to find a large number of antivaxers that have amassed since the fraudulent Wakefield scandal. The scientific process being followed, peer review in reputable professional journals is the basic foundation of good practice, of course. When the world is awash with charlatans, many of them actively working to gain financially and otherwise from the misery and deaths of others, it's essential to guard against their harm. Some of them are antivaxers - we all need to make sure that they don't cause further damage.
Which of those 7 authors who qualify to write and publish on PubMed are you qualified to discredit?
Which authors are you qualified to credit?
What's your experience in their fields, how did you review and cross check those you choose to believe?
J
They all qualify to publish on PubMed. That in itself is a standard. We were told to trust the science. These are the scientists.
Personally I'd trust scientists with expertise in that particular field.
As has already mentioned, one of them is a psychiatrist.
Can you answer my question, what's your experience in the field?
J
To become a psychiatrist, first you must train for 5 years to become a qualified medical doctor, 4 if you fast track, then 3 years to specialise. Certainly relevant expertise for studying harm to the body.
I have no experience in the field whatsoever. I have done research professionally so I understand scientific method and well enough to have been offered 2 PhD’s in my life, both in fields that I have no experience. To be fair, my qualifications are irrelevant, you are shooting the messenger.
As you say, 4 years to specialise. The author in point here specialises in psychiatry, not epidemiology, so I fail to see why you'd take his view, as opposed to some who took 4 years to specialise in epidemiology.
How did you manage to get offered 2 PhDs in fields you have no experience in? That's intriguing.
I'd be interested in understanding what you consider research.
J
The paper is not about epidemiology it’s about physiological damage caused by a foreign body.
Both of the Phd offers came from meeting people doing research, discussing their work and offering solutions to problems they were too close to. One was studying how trees communicate, that was a great offer but I’d have had to write 2 learned documents a year in Swedish . The other was in sonar development and I didn’t fancy moving to Southampton. My own work was in phase linear acoustic arrays. Nothing published, it was all intellectual property.
You don't get "offered a PhD, let alone 2 in subjects you've not submitted your own papers on.
For anyone interested in the PhD pathway;
To obtain a PhD, you typically need to complete a master's degree, conduct independent research, write a thesis, and defend your research in an oral examination. The process involves applying to a PhD program, researching a suitable topic, developing a research proposal, and seeking funding.
Complete a Master's Degree: While not always mandatory, a master's degree is often a prerequisite for PhD programs.
Identify a PhD Program: Research universities and programs offering PhDs in your desired field.
Develop a Research Proposal: This outlines your proposed research topic, questions, and methodology.
Find a Supervisor: Contact potential supervisors whose research aligns with your proposal and discuss your ideas.
Apply to PhD Programs: Submit your application materials, including your research proposal, transcripts, letters of recommendation, and possibly a GRE score.
Get Accepted: If accepted, you'll be registered as a PhD student and begin your research journey.
Complete Coursework: Some programs require coursework, while others focus on research.
Conduct Independent Research: Under the guidance of your supervisor, you'll conduct your own research, analyze data, and contribute to your field.
Write a Thesis: The culmination of your research is a doctoral thesis, a substantial and original contribution to knowledge.
Defend Your Thesis (Viva Voce): You'll present your research to an examination panel and answer questions in an oral examination.
Receive Your PhD: Upon successful completion of your thesis and viva, you'll receive your Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree.
J"I am completely with you and the guy trying to defend a poor study written as red meat for antivaxxers is delusional at best. But I need to warn you: you are going to waste a lot of time, if you start discussing with these people. They never admit their ignorance, they never admit they are wrong and in an attempt to score points they keep moving the goal post at every sensible reply you write. | |||
"Jehovah witness refusal of blood for themselves and their children vs parental refusal of vaccines for their children. Food for thought?" I’m sure it sucks to be the child of someone who won’t do the right thing for your healthcare but, if you survive to adulthood, you can make your own informed choices and have all the vaccines or blood you want. It’s an imperfect world. | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA Main author of this paper is a psychiatrist. I love these dick measuring debates. My dad's bigger than your dad. Believe the scientists until it's one you choose not to be believe. It's Complex to find credible sources for us novices. He is a psychiatrist what he knows about immunology you can probably write on a postage stamp in big writing. We all should read all sources and question them equally, maybe question things you tend to agree with even more. There are massive red flags in this paper.Firstly it is really badly written. The spikeopathy term isn't great and screams click bait. There are 7 authors who wrote and reviewed this paper. You sound desperate to discredit work you are afraid to hear. There are lots of credible papers which highlight how hazardous spike protein is. It’s old news. The number of authors of any report, doesn't determine its quality or veracity, for example. It's very easy to find a large number of antivaxers that have amassed since the fraudulent Wakefield scandal. The scientific process being followed, peer review in reputable professional journals is the basic foundation of good practice, of course. When the world is awash with charlatans, many of them actively working to gain financially and otherwise from the misery and deaths of others, it's essential to guard against their harm. Some of them are antivaxers - we all need to make sure that they don't cause further damage.
Which of those 7 authors who qualify to write and publish on PubMed are you qualified to discredit?
Which authors are you qualified to credit?
What's your experience in their fields, how did you review and cross check those you choose to believe?
J
They all qualify to publish on PubMed. That in itself is a standard. We were told to trust the science. These are the scientists.
Personally I'd trust scientists with expertise in that particular field.
As has already mentioned, one of them is a psychiatrist.
Can you answer my question, what's your experience in the field?
J
To become a psychiatrist, first you must train for 5 years to become a qualified medical doctor, 4 if you fast track, then 3 years to specialise. Certainly relevant expertise for studying harm to the body.
I have no experience in the field whatsoever. I have done research professionally so I understand scientific method and well enough to have been offered 2 PhD’s in my life, both in fields that I have no experience. To be fair, my qualifications are irrelevant, you are shooting the messenger.
As you say, 4 years to specialise. The author in point here specialises in psychiatry, not epidemiology, so I fail to see why you'd take his view, as opposed to some who took 4 years to specialise in epidemiology.
How did you manage to get offered 2 PhDs in fields you have no experience in? That's intriguing.
I'd be interested in understanding what you consider research.
J
The paper is not about epidemiology it’s about physiological damage caused by a foreign body.
Both of the Phd offers came from meeting people doing research, discussing their work and offering solutions to problems they were too close to. One was studying how trees communicate, that was a great offer but I’d have had to write 2 learned documents a year in Swedish . The other was in sonar development and I didn’t fancy moving to Southampton. My own work was in phase linear acoustic arrays. Nothing published, it was all intellectual property.
You don't get "offered a PhD, let alone 2 in subjects you've not submitted your own papers on.
For anyone interested in the PhD pathway;
To obtain a PhD, you typically need to complete a master's degree, conduct independent research, write a thesis, and defend your research in an oral examination. The process involves applying to a PhD program, researching a suitable topic, developing a research proposal, and seeking funding.
Complete a Master's Degree: While not always mandatory, a master's degree is often a prerequisite for PhD programs.
Identify a PhD Program: Research universities and programs offering PhDs in your desired field.
Develop a Research Proposal: This outlines your proposed research topic, questions, and methodology.
Find a Supervisor: Contact potential supervisors whose research aligns with your proposal and discuss your ideas.
Apply to PhD Programs: Submit your application materials, including your research proposal, transcripts, letters of recommendation, and possibly a GRE score.
Get Accepted: If accepted, you'll be registered as a PhD student and begin your research journey.
Complete Coursework: Some programs require coursework, while others focus on research.
Conduct Independent Research: Under the guidance of your supervisor, you'll conduct your own research, analyze data, and contribute to your field.
Write a Thesis: The culmination of your research is a doctoral thesis, a substantial and original contribution to knowledge.
Defend Your Thesis (Viva Voce): You'll present your research to an examination panel and answer questions in an oral examination.
Receive Your PhD: Upon successful completion of your thesis and viva, you'll receive your Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree.
J"You write about a “typical” pathway to getting a PhD. In fact some people without degrees have completed PhD’s. It’s extraordinary but by no means impossible. This alone defeats your argument. My offer to do a PhD in Sweden was cast iron. £40,000pa living in Malmo to research how trees communicate. A decent stipend, especially so for one 20 years ago. As it happens my hunch at the time of the offer turned out to be correct, mycelia. As for the Sonar development PhD, they sought me out and asked me to apply based on the new ground I had covered on acoustic arrays when they heard about it. Working on a PhD was a condition of employment, possibly for tax reasons. | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA Main author of this paper is a psychiatrist. I love these dick measuring debates. My dad's bigger than your dad. Believe the scientists until it's one you choose not to be believe. It's Complex to find credible sources for us novices. He is a psychiatrist what he knows about immunology you can probably write on a postage stamp in big writing. We all should read all sources and question them equally, maybe question things you tend to agree with even more. There are massive red flags in this paper.Firstly it is really badly written. The spikeopathy term isn't great and screams click bait. There are 7 authors who wrote and reviewed this paper. You sound desperate to discredit work you are afraid to hear. There are lots of credible papers which highlight how hazardous spike protein is. It’s old news. The number of authors of any report, doesn't determine its quality or veracity, for example. It's very easy to find a large number of antivaxers that have amassed since the fraudulent Wakefield scandal. The scientific process being followed, peer review in reputable professional journals is the basic foundation of good practice, of course. When the world is awash with charlatans, many of them actively working to gain financially and otherwise from the misery and deaths of others, it's essential to guard against their harm. Some of them are antivaxers - we all need to make sure that they don't cause further damage.
Which of those 7 authors who qualify to write and publish on PubMed are you qualified to discredit?
Which authors are you qualified to credit?
What's your experience in their fields, how did you review and cross check those you choose to believe?
J
They all qualify to publish on PubMed. That in itself is a standard. We were told to trust the science. These are the scientists.
Personally I'd trust scientists with expertise in that particular field.
As has already mentioned, one of them is a psychiatrist.
Can you answer my question, what's your experience in the field?
J
To become a psychiatrist, first you must train for 5 years to become a qualified medical doctor, 4 if you fast track, then 3 years to specialise. Certainly relevant expertise for studying harm to the body.
I have no experience in the field whatsoever. I have done research professionally so I understand scientific method and well enough to have been offered 2 PhD’s in my life, both in fields that I have no experience. To be fair, my qualifications are irrelevant, you are shooting the messenger.
As you say, 4 years to specialise. The author in point here specialises in psychiatry, not epidemiology, so I fail to see why you'd take his view, as opposed to some who took 4 years to specialise in epidemiology.
How did you manage to get offered 2 PhDs in fields you have no experience in? That's intriguing.
I'd be interested in understanding what you consider research.
J
The paper is not about epidemiology it’s about physiological damage caused by a foreign body.
Both of the Phd offers came from meeting people doing research, discussing their work and offering solutions to problems they were too close to. One was studying how trees communicate, that was a great offer but I’d have had to write 2 learned documents a year in Swedish . The other was in sonar development and I didn’t fancy moving to Southampton. My own work was in phase linear acoustic arrays. Nothing published, it was all intellectual property.
You don't get "offered a PhD, let alone 2 in subjects you've not submitted your own papers on.
For anyone interested in the PhD pathway;
To obtain a PhD, you typically need to complete a master's degree, conduct independent research, write a thesis, and defend your research in an oral examination. The process involves applying to a PhD program, researching a suitable topic, developing a research proposal, and seeking funding.
Complete a Master's Degree: While not always mandatory, a master's degree is often a prerequisite for PhD programs.
Identify a PhD Program: Research universities and programs offering PhDs in your desired field.
Develop a Research Proposal: This outlines your proposed research topic, questions, and methodology.
Find a Supervisor: Contact potential supervisors whose research aligns with your proposal and discuss your ideas.
Apply to PhD Programs: Submit your application materials, including your research proposal, transcripts, letters of recommendation, and possibly a GRE score.
Get Accepted: If accepted, you'll be registered as a PhD student and begin your research journey.
Complete Coursework: Some programs require coursework, while others focus on research.
Conduct Independent Research: Under the guidance of your supervisor, you'll conduct your own research, analyze data, and contribute to your field.
Write a Thesis: The culmination of your research is a doctoral thesis, a substantial and original contribution to knowledge.
Defend Your Thesis (Viva Voce): You'll present your research to an examination panel and answer questions in an oral examination.
Receive Your PhD: Upon successful completion of your thesis and viva, you'll receive your Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree.
J
You write about a “typical” pathway to getting a PhD. In fact some people without degrees have completed PhD’s. It’s extraordinary but by no means impossible. This alone defeats your argument. My offer to do a PhD in Sweden was cast iron. £40,000pa living in Malmo to research how trees communicate. A decent stipend, especially so for one 20 years ago. As it happens my hunch at the time of the offer turned out to be correct, mycelia. As for the Sonar development PhD, they sought me out and asked me to apply based on the new ground I had covered on acoustic arrays when they heard about it. Working on a PhD was a condition of employment, possibly for tax reasons. "None of this matters we were discussing about a shitty “study” brought by people who are not experts in the field, who make up new words to clickbait anti vaxxers and that even if valid (it’s not) it would be a single study saying the opposite of what a ton of other (valid) studies say about vaccine safety and the alleged danger in the spike protein. Also given how you fell for it, I’d say your phd was probably in literature, rather than anything remotely related to medicine and science | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA Main author of this paper is a psychiatrist. I love these dick measuring debates. My dad's bigger than your dad. Believe the scientists until it's one you choose not to be believe. It's Complex to find credible sources for us novices. He is a psychiatrist what he knows about immunology you can probably write on a postage stamp in big writing. We all should read all sources and question them equally, maybe question things you tend to agree with even more. There are massive red flags in this paper.Firstly it is really badly written. The spikeopathy term isn't great and screams click bait. There are 7 authors who wrote and reviewed this paper. You sound desperate to discredit work you are afraid to hear. There are lots of credible papers which highlight how hazardous spike protein is. It’s old news. The number of authors of any report, doesn't determine its quality or veracity, for example. It's very easy to find a large number of antivaxers that have amassed since the fraudulent Wakefield scandal. The scientific process being followed, peer review in reputable professional journals is the basic foundation of good practice, of course. When the world is awash with charlatans, many of them actively working to gain financially and otherwise from the misery and deaths of others, it's essential to guard against their harm. Some of them are antivaxers - we all need to make sure that they don't cause further damage.
Which of those 7 authors who qualify to write and publish on PubMed are you qualified to discredit?
Which authors are you qualified to credit?
What's your experience in their fields, how did you review and cross check those you choose to believe?
J
They all qualify to publish on PubMed. That in itself is a standard. We were told to trust the science. These are the scientists.
Personally I'd trust scientists with expertise in that particular field.
As has already mentioned, one of them is a psychiatrist.
Can you answer my question, what's your experience in the field?
J
To become a psychiatrist, first you must train for 5 years to become a qualified medical doctor, 4 if you fast track, then 3 years to specialise. Certainly relevant expertise for studying harm to the body.
I have no experience in the field whatsoever. I have done research professionally so I understand scientific method and well enough to have been offered 2 PhD’s in my life, both in fields that I have no experience. To be fair, my qualifications are irrelevant, you are shooting the messenger.
As you say, 4 years to specialise. The author in point here specialises in psychiatry, not epidemiology, so I fail to see why you'd take his view, as opposed to some who took 4 years to specialise in epidemiology.
How did you manage to get offered 2 PhDs in fields you have no experience in? That's intriguing.
I'd be interested in understanding what you consider research.
J
The paper is not about epidemiology it’s about physiological damage caused by a foreign body.
Both of the Phd offers came from meeting people doing research, discussing their work and offering solutions to problems they were too close to. One was studying how trees communicate, that was a great offer but I’d have had to write 2 learned documents a year in Swedish . The other was in sonar development and I didn’t fancy moving to Southampton. My own work was in phase linear acoustic arrays. Nothing published, it was all intellectual property.
You don't get "offered a PhD, let alone 2 in subjects you've not submitted your own papers on.
For anyone interested in the PhD pathway;
To obtain a PhD, you typically need to complete a master's degree, conduct independent research, write a thesis, and defend your research in an oral examination. The process involves applying to a PhD program, researching a suitable topic, developing a research proposal, and seeking funding.
Complete a Master's Degree: While not always mandatory, a master's degree is often a prerequisite for PhD programs.
Identify a PhD Program: Research universities and programs offering PhDs in your desired field.
Develop a Research Proposal: This outlines your proposed research topic, questions, and methodology.
Find a Supervisor: Contact potential supervisors whose research aligns with your proposal and discuss your ideas.
Apply to PhD Programs: Submit your application materials, including your research proposal, transcripts, letters of recommendation, and possibly a GRE score.
Get Accepted: If accepted, you'll be registered as a PhD student and begin your research journey.
Complete Coursework: Some programs require coursework, while others focus on research.
Conduct Independent Research: Under the guidance of your supervisor, you'll conduct your own research, analyze data, and contribute to your field.
Write a Thesis: The culmination of your research is a doctoral thesis, a substantial and original contribution to knowledge.
Defend Your Thesis (Viva Voce): You'll present your research to an examination panel and answer questions in an oral examination.
Receive Your PhD: Upon successful completion of your thesis and viva, you'll receive your Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree.
J
You write about a “typical” pathway to getting a PhD. In fact some people without degrees have completed PhD’s. It’s extraordinary but by no means impossible. This alone defeats your argument. My offer to do a PhD in Sweden was cast iron. £40,000pa living in Malmo to research how trees communicate. A decent stipend, especially so for one 20 years ago. As it happens my hunch at the time of the offer turned out to be correct, mycelia. As for the Sonar development PhD, they sought me out and asked me to apply based on the new ground I had covered on acoustic arrays when they heard about it. Working on a PhD was a condition of employment, possibly for tax reasons. "That's not what you said. Your statement was that you had been offered 2 PhDs. Not that you were asked to apply for 1. For the sake of debate, my observation is correct, even if your your statement is true. Given what you claim the PhD was for, it carries zero weight in your ability to gauge valid information regarding vaccines. A PhD in how trees communicate in no way qualifies you to comment on any other field. As is clearly demonstrated in most of your posts about vaccines. If you had pursued a PhD you'd understand what constitutes research. And it's not googling and stopping at the first thing that confirms your bias. J | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA Main author of this paper is a psychiatrist. I love these dick measuring debates. My dad's bigger than your dad. Believe the scientists until it's one you choose not to be believe. It's Complex to find credible sources for us novices. He is a psychiatrist what he knows about immunology you can probably write on a postage stamp in big writing. We all should read all sources and question them equally, maybe question things you tend to agree with even more. There are massive red flags in this paper.Firstly it is really badly written. The spikeopathy term isn't great and screams click bait. There are 7 authors who wrote and reviewed this paper. You sound desperate to discredit work you are afraid to hear. There are lots of credible papers which highlight how hazardous spike protein is. It’s old news. The number of authors of any report, doesn't determine its quality or veracity, for example. It's very easy to find a large number of antivaxers that have amassed since the fraudulent Wakefield scandal. The scientific process being followed, peer review in reputable professional journals is the basic foundation of good practice, of course. When the world is awash with charlatans, many of them actively working to gain financially and otherwise from the misery and deaths of others, it's essential to guard against their harm. Some of them are antivaxers - we all need to make sure that they don't cause further damage.
Which of those 7 authors who qualify to write and publish on PubMed are you qualified to discredit?
Which authors are you qualified to credit?
What's your experience in their fields, how did you review and cross check those you choose to believe?
J
They all qualify to publish on PubMed. That in itself is a standard. We were told to trust the science. These are the scientists.
Personally I'd trust scientists with expertise in that particular field.
As has already mentioned, one of them is a psychiatrist.
Can you answer my question, what's your experience in the field?
J
To become a psychiatrist, first you must train for 5 years to become a qualified medical doctor, 4 if you fast track, then 3 years to specialise. Certainly relevant expertise for studying harm to the body.
I have no experience in the field whatsoever. I have done research professionally so I understand scientific method and well enough to have been offered 2 PhD’s in my life, both in fields that I have no experience. To be fair, my qualifications are irrelevant, you are shooting the messenger.
As you say, 4 years to specialise. The author in point here specialises in psychiatry, not epidemiology, so I fail to see why you'd take his view, as opposed to some who took 4 years to specialise in epidemiology.
How did you manage to get offered 2 PhDs in fields you have no experience in? That's intriguing.
I'd be interested in understanding what you consider research.
J
The paper is not about epidemiology it’s about physiological damage caused by a foreign body.
Both of the Phd offers came from meeting people doing research, discussing their work and offering solutions to problems they were too close to. One was studying how trees communicate, that was a great offer but I’d have had to write 2 learned documents a year in Swedish . The other was in sonar development and I didn’t fancy moving to Southampton. My own work was in phase linear acoustic arrays. Nothing published, it was all intellectual property.
You don't get "offered a PhD, let alone 2 in subjects you've not submitted your own papers on.
For anyone interested in the PhD pathway;
To obtain a PhD, you typically need to complete a master's degree, conduct independent research, write a thesis, and defend your research in an oral examination. The process involves applying to a PhD program, researching a suitable topic, developing a research proposal, and seeking funding.
Complete a Master's Degree: While not always mandatory, a master's degree is often a prerequisite for PhD programs.
Identify a PhD Program: Research universities and programs offering PhDs in your desired field.
Develop a Research Proposal: This outlines your proposed research topic, questions, and methodology.
Find a Supervisor: Contact potential supervisors whose research aligns with your proposal and discuss your ideas.
Apply to PhD Programs: Submit your application materials, including your research proposal, transcripts, letters of recommendation, and possibly a GRE score.
Get Accepted: If accepted, you'll be registered as a PhD student and begin your research journey.
Complete Coursework: Some programs require coursework, while others focus on research.
Conduct Independent Research: Under the guidance of your supervisor, you'll conduct your own research, analyze data, and contribute to your field.
Write a Thesis: The culmination of your research is a doctoral thesis, a substantial and original contribution to knowledge.
Defend Your Thesis (Viva Voce): You'll present your research to an examination panel and answer questions in an oral examination.
Receive Your PhD: Upon successful completion of your thesis and viva, you'll receive your Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree.
J
I am completely with you and the guy trying to defend a poor study written as red meat for antivaxxers is delusional at best.
But I need to warn you: you are going to waste a lot of time, if you start discussing with these people. They never admit their ignorance, they never admit they are wrong and in an attempt to score points they keep moving the goal post at every sensible reply you write."Astutely put | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA Main author of this paper is a psychiatrist. I love these dick measuring debates. My dad's bigger than your dad. Believe the scientists until it's one you choose not to be believe. It's Complex to find credible sources for us novices. He is a psychiatrist what he knows about immunology you can probably write on a postage stamp in big writing. We all should read all sources and question them equally, maybe question things you tend to agree with even more. There are massive red flags in this paper.Firstly it is really badly written. The spikeopathy term isn't great and screams click bait. There are 7 authors who wrote and reviewed this paper. You sound desperate to discredit work you are afraid to hear. There are lots of credible papers which highlight how hazardous spike protein is. It’s old news. The number of authors of any report, doesn't determine its quality or veracity, for example. It's very easy to find a large number of antivaxers that have amassed since the fraudulent Wakefield scandal. The scientific process being followed, peer review in reputable professional journals is the basic foundation of good practice, of course. When the world is awash with charlatans, many of them actively working to gain financially and otherwise from the misery and deaths of others, it's essential to guard against their harm. Some of them are antivaxers - we all need to make sure that they don't cause further damage.
Which of those 7 authors who qualify to write and publish on PubMed are you qualified to discredit?
Which authors are you qualified to credit?
What's your experience in their fields, how did you review and cross check those you choose to believe?
J
They all qualify to publish on PubMed. That in itself is a standard. We were told to trust the science. These are the scientists.
Personally I'd trust scientists with expertise in that particular field.
As has already mentioned, one of them is a psychiatrist.
Can you answer my question, what's your experience in the field?
J
To become a psychiatrist, first you must train for 5 years to become a qualified medical doctor, 4 if you fast track, then 3 years to specialise. Certainly relevant expertise for studying harm to the body.
I have no experience in the field whatsoever. I have done research professionally so I understand scientific method and well enough to have been offered 2 PhD’s in my life, both in fields that I have no experience. To be fair, my qualifications are irrelevant, you are shooting the messenger.
As you say, 4 years to specialise. The author in point here specialises in psychiatry, not epidemiology, so I fail to see why you'd take his view, as opposed to some who took 4 years to specialise in epidemiology.
How did you manage to get offered 2 PhDs in fields you have no experience in? That's intriguing.
I'd be interested in understanding what you consider research.
J
The paper is not about epidemiology it’s about physiological damage caused by a foreign body.
Both of the Phd offers came from meeting people doing research, discussing their work and offering solutions to problems they were too close to. One was studying how trees communicate, that was a great offer but I’d have had to write 2 learned documents a year in Swedish . The other was in sonar development and I didn’t fancy moving to Southampton. My own work was in phase linear acoustic arrays. Nothing published, it was all intellectual property.
You don't get "offered a PhD, let alone 2 in subjects you've not submitted your own papers on.
For anyone interested in the PhD pathway;
To obtain a PhD, you typically need to complete a master's degree, conduct independent research, write a thesis, and defend your research in an oral examination. The process involves applying to a PhD program, researching a suitable topic, developing a research proposal, and seeking funding.
Complete a Master's Degree: While not always mandatory, a master's degree is often a prerequisite for PhD programs.
Identify a PhD Program: Research universities and programs offering PhDs in your desired field.
Develop a Research Proposal: This outlines your proposed research topic, questions, and methodology.
Find a Supervisor: Contact potential supervisors whose research aligns with your proposal and discuss your ideas.
Apply to PhD Programs: Submit your application materials, including your research proposal, transcripts, letters of recommendation, and possibly a GRE score.
Get Accepted: If accepted, you'll be registered as a PhD student and begin your research journey.
Complete Coursework: Some programs require coursework, while others focus on research.
Conduct Independent Research: Under the guidance of your supervisor, you'll conduct your own research, analyze data, and contribute to your field.
Write a Thesis: The culmination of your research is a doctoral thesis, a substantial and original contribution to knowledge.
Defend Your Thesis (Viva Voce): You'll present your research to an examination panel and answer questions in an oral examination.
Receive Your PhD: Upon successful completion of your thesis and viva, you'll receive your Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree.
J
I am completely with you and the guy trying to defend a poor study written as red meat for antivaxxers is delusional at best.
But I need to warn you: you are going to waste a lot of time, if you start discussing with these people. They never admit their ignorance, they never admit they are wrong and in an attempt to score points they keep moving the goal post at every sensible reply you write.
Astutely put "Just the naked truth | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA Main author of this paper is a psychiatrist. I love these dick measuring debates. My dad's bigger than your dad. Believe the scientists until it's one you choose not to be believe. It's Complex to find credible sources for us novices. He is a psychiatrist what he knows about immunology you can probably write on a postage stamp in big writing. We all should read all sources and question them equally, maybe question things you tend to agree with even more. There are massive red flags in this paper.Firstly it is really badly written. The spikeopathy term isn't great and screams click bait. There are 7 authors who wrote and reviewed this paper. You sound desperate to discredit work you are afraid to hear. There are lots of credible papers which highlight how hazardous spike protein is. It’s old news. The number of authors of any report, doesn't determine its quality or veracity, for example. It's very easy to find a large number of antivaxers that have amassed since the fraudulent Wakefield scandal. The scientific process being followed, peer review in reputable professional journals is the basic foundation of good practice, of course. When the world is awash with charlatans, many of them actively working to gain financially and otherwise from the misery and deaths of others, it's essential to guard against their harm. Some of them are antivaxers - we all need to make sure that they don't cause further damage.
Which of those 7 authors who qualify to write and publish on PubMed are you qualified to discredit?
Which authors are you qualified to credit?
What's your experience in their fields, how did you review and cross check those you choose to believe?
J
They all qualify to publish on PubMed. That in itself is a standard. We were told to trust the science. These are the scientists.
Personally I'd trust scientists with expertise in that particular field.
As has already mentioned, one of them is a psychiatrist.
Can you answer my question, what's your experience in the field?
J
To become a psychiatrist, first you must train for 5 years to become a qualified medical doctor, 4 if you fast track, then 3 years to specialise. Certainly relevant expertise for studying harm to the body.
I have no experience in the field whatsoever. I have done research professionally so I understand scientific method and well enough to have been offered 2 PhD’s in my life, both in fields that I have no experience. To be fair, my qualifications are irrelevant, you are shooting the messenger.
As you say, 4 years to specialise. The author in point here specialises in psychiatry, not epidemiology, so I fail to see why you'd take his view, as opposed to some who took 4 years to specialise in epidemiology.
How did you manage to get offered 2 PhDs in fields you have no experience in? That's intriguing.
I'd be interested in understanding what you consider research.
J
The paper is not about epidemiology it’s about physiological damage caused by a foreign body.
Both of the Phd offers came from meeting people doing research, discussing their work and offering solutions to problems they were too close to. One was studying how trees communicate, that was a great offer but I’d have had to write 2 learned documents a year in Swedish . The other was in sonar development and I didn’t fancy moving to Southampton. My own work was in phase linear acoustic arrays. Nothing published, it was all intellectual property.
You don't get "offered a PhD, let alone 2 in subjects you've not submitted your own papers on.
For anyone interested in the PhD pathway;
To obtain a PhD, you typically need to complete a master's degree, conduct independent research, write a thesis, and defend your research in an oral examination. The process involves applying to a PhD program, researching a suitable topic, developing a research proposal, and seeking funding.
Complete a Master's Degree: While not always mandatory, a master's degree is often a prerequisite for PhD programs.
Identify a PhD Program: Research universities and programs offering PhDs in your desired field.
Develop a Research Proposal: This outlines your proposed research topic, questions, and methodology.
Find a Supervisor: Contact potential supervisors whose research aligns with your proposal and discuss your ideas.
Apply to PhD Programs: Submit your application materials, including your research proposal, transcripts, letters of recommendation, and possibly a GRE score.
Get Accepted: If accepted, you'll be registered as a PhD student and begin your research journey.
Complete Coursework: Some programs require coursework, while others focus on research.
Conduct Independent Research: Under the guidance of your supervisor, you'll conduct your own research, analyze data, and contribute to your field.
Write a Thesis: The culmination of your research is a doctoral thesis, a substantial and original contribution to knowledge.
Defend Your Thesis (Viva Voce): You'll present your research to an examination panel and answer questions in an oral examination.
Receive Your PhD: Upon successful completion of your thesis and viva, you'll receive your Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree.
J
You write about a “typical” pathway to getting a PhD. In fact some people without degrees have completed PhD’s. It’s extraordinary but by no means impossible. This alone defeats your argument. My offer to do a PhD in Sweden was cast iron. £40,000pa living in Malmo to research how trees communicate. A decent stipend, especially so for one 20 years ago. As it happens my hunch at the time of the offer turned out to be correct, mycelia. As for the Sonar development PhD, they sought me out and asked me to apply based on the new ground I had covered on acoustic arrays when they heard about it. Working on a PhD was a condition of employment, possibly for tax reasons.
That's not what you said.
Your statement was that you had been offered 2 PhDs. Not that you were asked to apply for 1.
For the sake of debate, my observation is correct, even if your your statement is true. Given what you claim the PhD was for, it carries zero weight in your ability to gauge valid information regarding vaccines.
A PhD in how trees communicate in no way qualifies you to comment on any other field. As is clearly demonstrated in most of your posts about vaccines.
If you had pursued a PhD you'd understand what constitutes research.
And it's not googling and stopping at the first thing that confirms your bias.
J
"In fairness he already said he had no experience in the field, way back up in the discourse... "I have no experience in the field whatsoever. I have done research professionally so I understand scientific method and well enough to have been offered 2 PhD’s in my life, both in fields that I have no experience. To be fair, my qualifications are irrelevant, you are shooting the messenger." | |||
| |||
" In fairness he already said he had no experience in the field, way back up in the discourse... "I have no experience in the field whatsoever. I have done research professionally so I understand scientific method and well enough to have been offered 2 PhD’s in my life, both in fields that I have no experience. To be fair, my qualifications are irrelevant, you are shooting the messenger."" The point I was trying (unsuccessfuly) to make, if you've no experience or knowledge in a particular field, you're not qualified to state that a study or paper is valid and pronounce it a factually accurate to your audience. A PhD, (that he didn't get) in "How trees communicate" really doesn't qualify anyone to lecture on vaccines. Notwithstanding, as you point out, by his own words he has "no experience in the field whatsoever", consequently I'm even less inclined to believe anything presented as factually accurate. J | |||
| |||
"[Removed by poster at 23/04/25 10:16:33]" Too late. I read it. 
J | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"JW's are a cult, the same as all religions. Why put your trust in an invisible being that there is no evidence of? If Adam and Eve were the first people on this Earth then why go backwards and create dinosaurs?? The sooner people realise that religion is nasty the better place the world would be" You're assuming a lot saying dinosaurs are a backward step from humans | |||
"Wise people, I wouldn't accept blood now either " So glad you have the freedom to make that choice. I'm glad you've found a safe place for yourself - when you've finished building your time machine just set course for the fifteenth century and you'll fit right in. | |||
| |||
| |||
"That's what the good book says. Don't take my word on it. I didn't write it" I smile when people cherry pick which parts of the Bible they follow. Leviticus 18:22 | |||
"I work in the 'industry' and we recently had a request from a patient who was going to refuse a transfusion if the donor had had the Covid vaccine. Ok... it's your potential death... Blimey! 🙄 Can you tell if the blood is from a vaccinated person? You can’t. It’s just one of those moronic requests made by morons. Im interested to know. Do they choose not to have blood at all, what with the risks from vaccinated blood being what, practically zero? Spike protein is a toxin. Spikeopathy is a new medical term. If you don’t believe me look up this and other titles on PubMed: ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA Main author of this paper is a psychiatrist. I love these dick measuring debates. My dad's bigger than your dad. Believe the scientists until it's one you choose not to be believe. It's Complex to find credible sources for us novices. He is a psychiatrist what he knows about immunology you can probably write on a postage stamp in big writing. We all should read all sources and question them equally, maybe question things you tend to agree with even more. There are massive red flags in this paper.Firstly it is really badly written. The spikeopathy term isn't great and screams click bait. There are 7 authors who wrote and reviewed this paper. You sound desperate to discredit work you are afraid to hear. There are lots of credible papers which highlight how hazardous spike protein is. It’s old news. The number of authors of any report, doesn't determine its quality or veracity, for example. It's very easy to find a large number of antivaxers that have amassed since the fraudulent Wakefield scandal. The scientific process being followed, peer review in reputable professional journals is the basic foundation of good practice, of course. When the world is awash with charlatans, many of them actively working to gain financially and otherwise from the misery and deaths of others, it's essential to guard against their harm. Some of them are antivaxers - we all need to make sure that they don't cause further damage.
Which of those 7 authors who qualify to write and publish on PubMed are you qualified to discredit?
Which authors are you qualified to credit?
What's your experience in their fields, how did you review and cross check those you choose to believe?
J
They all qualify to publish on PubMed. That in itself is a standard. We were told to trust the science. These are the scientists.
Personally I'd trust scientists with expertise in that particular field.
As has already mentioned, one of them is a psychiatrist.
Can you answer my question, what's your experience in the field?
J
To become a psychiatrist, first you must train for 5 years to become a qualified medical doctor, 4 if you fast track, then 3 years to specialise. Certainly relevant expertise for studying harm to the body.
I have no experience in the field whatsoever. I have done research professionally so I understand scientific method and well enough to have been offered 2 PhD’s in my life, both in fields that I have no experience. To be fair, my qualifications are irrelevant, you are shooting the messenger.
As you say, 4 years to specialise. The author in point here specialises in psychiatry, not epidemiology, so I fail to see why you'd take his view, as opposed to some who took 4 years to specialise in epidemiology.
How did you manage to get offered 2 PhDs in fields you have no experience in? That's intriguing.
I'd be interested in understanding what you consider research.
J
The paper is not about epidemiology it’s about physiological damage caused by a foreign body.
Both of the Phd offers came from meeting people doing research, discussing their work and offering solutions to problems they were too close to. One was studying how trees communicate, that was a great offer but I’d have had to write 2 learned documents a year in Swedish . The other was in sonar development and I didn’t fancy moving to Southampton. My own work was in phase linear acoustic arrays. Nothing published, it was all intellectual property.
You don't get "offered a PhD, let alone 2 in subjects you've not submitted your own papers on.
For anyone interested in the PhD pathway;
To obtain a PhD, you typically need to complete a master's degree, conduct independent research, write a thesis, and defend your research in an oral examination. The process involves applying to a PhD program, researching a suitable topic, developing a research proposal, and seeking funding.
Complete a Master's Degree: While not always mandatory, a master's degree is often a prerequisite for PhD programs.
Identify a PhD Program: Research universities and programs offering PhDs in your desired field.
Develop a Research Proposal: This outlines your proposed research topic, questions, and methodology.
Find a Supervisor: Contact potential supervisors whose research aligns with your proposal and discuss your ideas.
Apply to PhD Programs: Submit your application materials, including your research proposal, transcripts, letters of recommendation, and possibly a GRE score.
Get Accepted: If accepted, you'll be registered as a PhD student and begin your research journey.
Complete Coursework: Some programs require coursework, while others focus on research.
Conduct Independent Research: Under the guidance of your supervisor, you'll conduct your own research, analyze data, and contribute to your field.
Write a Thesis: The culmination of your research is a doctoral thesis, a substantial and original contribution to knowledge.
Defend Your Thesis (Viva Voce): You'll present your research to an examination panel and answer questions in an oral examination.
Receive Your PhD: Upon successful completion of your thesis and viva, you'll receive your Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree.
J
You write about a “typical” pathway to getting a PhD. In fact some people without degrees have completed PhD’s. It’s extraordinary but by no means impossible. This alone defeats your argument. My offer to do a PhD in Sweden was cast iron. £40,000pa living in Malmo to research how trees communicate. A decent stipend, especially so for one 20 years ago. As it happens my hunch at the time of the offer turned out to be correct, mycelia. As for the Sonar development PhD, they sought me out and asked me to apply based on the new ground I had covered on acoustic arrays when they heard about it. Working on a PhD was a condition of employment, possibly for tax reasons.
That's not what you said.
Your statement was that you had been offered 2 PhDs. Not that you were asked to apply for 1.
For the sake of debate, my observation is correct, even if your your statement is true. Given what you claim the PhD was for, it carries zero weight in your ability to gauge valid information regarding vaccines.
A PhD in how trees communicate in no way qualifies you to comment on any other field. As is clearly demonstrated in most of your posts about vaccines.
If you had pursued a PhD you'd understand what constitutes research.
And it's not googling and stopping at the first thing that confirms your bias.
J
"I made it clear that I have no experience in the field earlier. Do you object to non professionals making comments on this forum that you agree with? No. You asked, I replied. My understanding of scientific method was my point. I have been sought out because my capacity is established. You are just trying to win an argument that you overcommitted too. The Sonar company wanted me as an employee, they sought me out, the PhD was an incidental condition of employment. I’ve said all I will say on the subject, I don’t need your validation. | |||
"That's what the good book says. Don't take my word on it. I didn't write it I smile when people cherry pick which parts of the Bible they follow. Leviticus 18:22 " I've just re-read that and it looks like I was suggesting you Cherry picked the bible verses. Not my intention. Apologies for any slight you may have felt. I should have put a bit more meat on the bones.... I see a lot of people claiming to follow the Bibles teachings. And they often ignore Leviticus 18.22, Leviticus 19:28, Collossians 3.5, Galatians 5.16, Matthew 5.31, Malachi 2.16. | |||
"In the old days when I worked in blood transfusion, they would often be sedated and then transfused. It was reasonably acceptable then (70s) nowadays there would be merry hell to pay. Hippocratic Oath says "do no harm". My this innocuous thread has brought out the oddballs. Between the anti vaccers and the God botherers its stirring a hornets nest? Some are making Trump sound sensible! In psychiatric wards patients are often legally "forced" to take their meds, meds which will make them better. I don't see any difference between religious fundamentalism and psychiatric illness. That's just my opinion though." | |||
| |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons " Would you call a follower of islam a moron for refusing to eat pork? | |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons Over 35 years ago a JW friend and I had to have transfusions after giving birth. She wouldn't accept blood but accepted plasma, I was given blood. She recovered quicker. Also, JWs would not have been affected by the blood scandal or CJD." We hope both you and your child recovered well from what must have been and extremely dangerous time at what should have been the very best of times 🙏 But in response to your thoughts… Could it possibly be that you and your friend are different people? Could it also be that despite not being part of the Blood scandal or CJD, that far more JW’s have died where a blood transfusion could have saved them that others have died from both of your examples put together with cream and cherries on top? | |||
| |||
"Well as said one is a religious belief the other is a stupid thing based on some twat on YouTube. Both parties are morons Over 35 years ago a JW friend and I had to have transfusions after giving birth. She wouldn't accept blood but accepted plasma, I was given blood. She recovered quicker. Also, JWs would not have been affected by the blood scandal or CJD. We hope both you and your child recovered well from what must have been and extremely dangerous time at what should have been the very best of times 🙏 But in response to your thoughts… Could it possibly be that you and your friend are different people? Could it also be that despite not being part of the Blood scandal or CJD, that far more JW’s have died where a blood transfusion could have saved them that others have died from both of your examples put together with cream and cherries on top? " Does that information exist? | |||
"Does that information exist? " Google tells me that in the a total of 178 people have died from vCJD and approx 3000 from the blood scandal, However, ~3000 JW’s have died since it’s prohibition in 1961 after having refused blood. I couldn’t get a number of deaths attributed to any vaccine but there are currently 334 people during the gov for a death they claim was as a direct result of having had the Covid-19 vaccine (it is important to note that not all of these might be accepted as directly caused by vaccines) Vaccines save and estimated 3million lives a year (WHO) My view is simply that yes, vaccines might kill a few props but it’s a country mile fewer that the illness it is protecting you against and those who choose to buck the odds are fools, those who choose to buck the odds for their children are worse than fools. | |||
| |||
"Joe Rogan. Dr Suzanne Humphreys is a good episode on vaccines. I think reglious freedoms and personal freedoms are the corner stone of any democracy and people should be free to make up there own minds about any topic. (Although I would say researching topics for yourself is always worth while) " You listen to Joe rogan and that crackpot Suzanne humphreys? The one that claimed that the polio vaccine doesn’t work? Evolution really works in strange ways | |||
| |||
"Joe Rogan. Dr Suzanne Humphreys is a good episode on vaccines. I think reglious freedoms and personal freedoms are the corner stone of any democracy and people should be free to make up there own minds about any topic. (Although I would say researching topics for yourself is always worth while) You listen to Joe rogan and that crackpot Suzanne humphreys? The one that claimed that the polio vaccine doesn’t work? Evolution really works in strange ways "Like I said it was an interesting episode, I'm not a scientist or an epidemiologist, but the points she made seem reasonable and logical to me. Feel free to bullet point the boys you disagree with and telle why. I'm always open to changing my mind 👍✌️ | |||
| |||
"Joe Rogan. Dr Suzanne Humphreys is a good episode on vaccines. I think reglious freedoms and personal freedoms are the corner stone of any democracy and people should be free to make up there own minds about any topic. (Although I would say researching topics for yourself is always worth while) You listen to Joe rogan and that crackpot Suzanne humphreys? The one that claimed that the polio vaccine doesn’t work? Evolution really works in strange ways
Like I said it was an interesting episode, I'm not a scientist or an epidemiologist, but the points she made seem reasonable and logical to me. Feel free to bullet point the boys you disagree with and telle why. I'm always open to changing my mind 👍✌️"I won’t waste time listening to a well known grifter who spent years claiming crazy stuff. If you google her name followed by “misinformation “ you’ll find plenty of articles by journalists and fact checkers who took time to debunk her crazy claims. As for rogan, he is a comedian and podcaster with zero scientific background but ready to sell his mother for a few more views. He allowed many conspiracy theorists on his show, without any balance whatsoever. Before anyone starts talking about freedom of speech: it’s not the same as freedom to say dangerous lies. And rogan allowed many crazy people completely unchecked, often encouraging them. There’s nothing about free speech there, it’s just misinformation, lies and crazy conspiracies. | |||
"Joe Rogan. Dr Suzanne Humphreys is a good episode on vaccines. I think reglious freedoms and personal freedoms are the corner stone of any democracy and people should be free to make up there own minds about any topic. (Although I would say researching topics for yourself is always worth while) You listen to Joe rogan and that crackpot Suzanne humphreys? The one that claimed that the polio vaccine doesn’t work? Evolution really works in strange ways
Like I said it was an interesting episode, I'm not a scientist or an epidemiologist, but the points she made seem reasonable and logical to me. Feel free to bullet point the boys you disagree with and telle why. I'm always open to changing my mind 👍✌️
I won’t waste time listening to a well known grifter who spent years claiming crazy stuff. If you google her name followed by “misinformation “ you’ll find plenty of articles by journalists and fact checkers who took time to debunk her crazy claims.
As for rogan, he is a comedian and podcaster with zero scientific background but ready to sell his mother for a few more views. He allowed many conspiracy theorists on his show, without any balance whatsoever.
Before anyone starts talking about freedom of speech: it’s not the same as freedom to say dangerous lies. And rogan allowed many crazy people completely unchecked, often encouraging them. There’s nothing about free speech there, it’s just misinformation, lies and crazy conspiracies."So you have an informed opinion about some people who you have not listened to but rather the the opinion of some strangers on the Internet and yet are critical of those who have actually listened to them. | |||
| |||
"Joe Rogan. Dr Suzanne Humphreys is a good episode on vaccines. I think reglious freedoms and personal freedoms are the corner stone of any democracy and people should be free to make up there own minds about any topic. (Although I would say researching topics for yourself is always worth while) " A website that rates quacks, media, gave her a 5/5 quack rating  . Amongst their write up, they said 'Like all the quacks and con-artists we list, Humphreys is able to use her limited and specific medical knowledge to confuse and mislead the public.'
She seems potentially very dangerous indeed, if just for the act of deterring people from getting their children to have the polio vaccine. Polio is a disgusting illness for children to have forced on them.
It's really worth visiting fact checker sources, to see the truth, instead of her claims. These people who have invaded the swamp, following the disgraced Andrew Wakefield, have become very polished in how they spin their webs of lies. This usually is to help them to earn, off the misery that they establish for others. Potentially, they might sound reasonable but this is because they have mastered their dark art. If the actions of people like her didn't result in many avoidable deaths and many more children becoming severely disabled for the rest of their lives, we could possibly think of these people as unusual outliers. Just 1 child becoming severely disabled for life, due to the denial of the polio vaccine, means that she's crossed the line. | |||
| |||
"Joe Rogan. Dr Suzanne Humphreys is a good episode on vaccines. I think reglious freedoms and personal freedoms are the corner stone of any democracy and people should be free to make up there own minds about any topic. (Although I would say researching topics for yourself is always worth while) A website that rates quacks, media, gave her a 5/5 quack rating . Amongst their write up, they said 'Like all the quacks and con-artists we list, Humphreys is able to use her limited and specific medical knowledge to confuse and mislead the public.'
She seems potentially very dangerous indeed, if just for the act of deterring people from getting their children to have the polio vaccine. Polio is a disgusting illness for children to have forced on them.
It's really worth visiting fact checker sources, to see the truth, instead of her claims. These people who have invaded the swamp, following the disgraced Andrew Wakefield, have become very polished in how they spin their webs of lies. This usually is to help them to earn, off the misery that they establish for others. Potentially, they might sound reasonable but this is because they have mastered their dark art. If the actions of people like her didn't result in many avoidable deaths and many more children becoming severely disabled for the rest of their lives, we could possibly think of these people as unusual outliers. Just 1 child becoming severely disabled for life, due to the denial of the polio vaccine, means that she's crossed the line."Honestly didn't know any of that, appreciate the info 👍 | |||
"Jehovah witness refusal of blood for themselves and their children vs parental refusal of vaccines for their children. Food for thought?" One is child neglect, the other is child neglect. | |||
"Joe Rogan. Dr Suzanne Humphreys is a good episode on vaccines. I think reglious freedoms and personal freedoms are the corner stone of any democracy and people should be free to make up there own minds about any topic. (Although I would say researching topics for yourself is always worth while) A website that rates quacks, media, gave her a 5/5 quack rating . Amongst their write up, they said 'Like all the quacks and con-artists we list, Humphreys is able to use her limited and specific medical knowledge to confuse and mislead the public.'
She seems potentially very dangerous indeed, if just for the act of deterring people from getting their children to have the polio vaccine. Polio is a disgusting illness for children to have forced on them.
It's really worth visiting fact checker sources, to see the truth, instead of her claims. These people who have invaded the swamp, following the disgraced Andrew Wakefield, have become very polished in how they spin their webs of lies. This usually is to help them to earn, off the misery that they establish for others. Potentially, they might sound reasonable but this is because they have mastered their dark art. If the actions of people like her didn't result in many avoidable deaths and many more children becoming severely disabled for the rest of their lives, we could possibly think of these people as unusual outliers. Just 1 child becoming severely disabled for life, due to the denial of the polio vaccine, means that she's crossed the line.
Honestly didn't know any of that, appreciate the info 👍"You're welcome . | |||
"Jehovah witness refusal of blood for themselves and their children vs parental refusal of vaccines for their children. Food for thought? One is child neglect, the other is child neglect." Perfectly put. It is not a religious or even personal choice when it’s inflict on others. | |||
"Joe Rogan. Dr Suzanne Humphreys is a good episode on vaccines. I think reglious freedoms and personal freedoms are the corner stone of any democracy and people should be free to make up there own minds about any topic. (Although I would say researching topics for yourself is always worth while) A website that rates quacks, media, gave her a 5/5 quack rating . Amongst their write up, they said 'Like all the quacks and con-artists we list, Humphreys is able to use her limited and specific medical knowledge to confuse and mislead the public.'
She seems potentially very dangerous indeed, if just for the act of deterring people from getting their children to have the polio vaccine. Polio is a disgusting illness for children to have forced on them.
It's really worth visiting fact checker sources, to see the truth, instead of her claims. These people who have invaded the swamp, following the disgraced Andrew Wakefield, have become very polished in how they spin their webs of lies. This usually is to help them to earn, off the misery that they establish for others. Potentially, they might sound reasonable but this is because they have mastered their dark art. If the actions of people like her didn't result in many avoidable deaths and many more children becoming severely disabled for the rest of their lives, we could possibly think of these people as unusual outliers. Just 1 child becoming severely disabled for life, due to the denial of the polio vaccine, means that she's crossed the line."💯 agreed. Anyone can sell literally anything to anyone not willing to do their due diligence. We will get 2 or 3 quotes for a holiday, build a wall or insure their car, but take the first whack-a-doodle idea at face value because they can’t can’t be arsed to question the “facts” and agenda. Or worse still, it excites their already excited fantasies of a dystopian overlord brainwashing by government…so unwilling to question the “facts” and agenda. | |||
"Joe Rogan. Dr Suzanne Humphreys is a good episode on vaccines. I think reglious freedoms and personal freedoms are the corner stone of any democracy and people should be free to make up there own minds about any topic. (Although I would say researching topics for yourself is always worth while) You listen to Joe rogan and that crackpot Suzanne humphreys? The one that claimed that the polio vaccine doesn’t work? Evolution really works in strange ways
Like I said it was an interesting episode, I'm not a scientist or an epidemiologist, but the points she made seem reasonable and logical to me. Feel free to bullet point the boys you disagree with and telle why. I'm always open to changing my mind 👍✌️
I won’t waste time listening to a well known grifter who spent years claiming crazy stuff. If you google her name followed by “misinformation “ you’ll find plenty of articles by journalists and fact checkers who took time to debunk her crazy claims.
As for rogan, he is a comedian and podcaster with zero scientific background but ready to sell his mother for a few more views. He allowed many conspiracy theorists on his show, without any balance whatsoever.
Before anyone starts talking about freedom of speech: it’s not the same as freedom to say dangerous lies. And rogan allowed many crazy people completely unchecked, often encouraging them. There’s nothing about free speech there, it’s just misinformation, lies and crazy conspiracies.
So you have an informed opinion about some people who you have not listened to but rather the the opinion of some strangers on the Internet and yet are critical of those who have actually listened to them. "No, Sherlock. I have a very informed opinion on anything related to medicine and I’ve been dealing with the damage done by these crooks on a daily basis. I know them, I know the utter nonsense they spout. I simply won’t write a dissertation here to demonstrate their lies when I can simply point you to articles that will do it for me. Any other pointless reply, or do you want to read the stuff I pointed to the other user? | |||
"Joe Rogan. Dr Suzanne Humphreys is a good episode on vaccines. I think reglious freedoms and personal freedoms are the corner stone of any democracy and people should be free to make up there own minds about any topic. (Although I would say researching topics for yourself is always worth while) A website that rates quacks, media, gave her a 5/5 quack rating . Amongst their write up, they said 'Like all the quacks and con-artists we list, Humphreys is able to use her limited and specific medical knowledge to confuse and mislead the public.'
She seems potentially very dangerous indeed, if just for the act of deterring people from getting their children to have the polio vaccine. Polio is a disgusting illness for children to have forced on them.
It's really worth visiting fact checker sources, to see the truth, instead of her claims. These people who have invaded the swamp, following the disgraced Andrew Wakefield, have become very polished in how they spin their webs of lies. This usually is to help them to earn, off the misery that they establish for others. Potentially, they might sound reasonable but this is because they have mastered their dark art. If the actions of people like her didn't result in many avoidable deaths and many more children becoming severely disabled for the rest of their lives, we could possibly think of these people as unusual outliers. Just 1 child becoming severely disabled for life, due to the denial of the polio vaccine, means that she's crossed the line.
Honestly didn't know any of that, appreciate the info 👍"Always good to find reasonable people here. Rare but good | |||
"Joe Rogan. Dr Suzanne Humphreys is a good episode on vaccines. I think reglious freedoms and personal freedoms are the corner stone of any democracy and people should be free to make up there own minds about any topic. (Although I would say researching topics for yourself is always worth while) You listen to Joe rogan and that crackpot Suzanne humphreys? The one that claimed that the polio vaccine doesn’t work? Evolution really works in strange ways
Like I said it was an interesting episode, I'm not a scientist or an epidemiologist, but the points she made seem reasonable and logical to me. Feel free to bullet point the boys you disagree with and telle why. I'm always open to changing my mind 👍✌️
I won’t waste time listening to a well known grifter who spent years claiming crazy stuff. If you google her name followed by “misinformation “ you’ll find plenty of articles by journalists and fact checkers who took time to debunk her crazy claims.
As for rogan, he is a comedian and podcaster with zero scientific background but ready to sell his mother for a few more views. He allowed many conspiracy theorists on his show, without any balance whatsoever.
Before anyone starts talking about freedom of speech: it’s not the same as freedom to say dangerous lies. And rogan allowed many crazy people completely unchecked, often encouraging them. There’s nothing about free speech there, it’s just misinformation, lies and crazy conspiracies.
So you have an informed opinion about some people who you have not listened to but rather the the opinion of some strangers on the Internet and yet are critical of those who have actually listened to them.
No, Sherlock. I have a very informed opinion on anything related to medicine and I’ve been dealing with the damage done by these crooks on a daily basis. I know them, I know the utter nonsense they spout. I simply won’t write a dissertation here to demonstrate their lies when I can simply point you to articles that will do it for me.
Any other pointless reply, or do you want to read the stuff I pointed to the other user?"Why do you feel the need to be unpleasant? | |||
"Joe Rogan. Dr Suzanne Humphreys is a good episode on vaccines. I think reglious freedoms and personal freedoms are the corner stone of any democracy and people should be free to make up there own minds about any topic. (Although I would say researching topics for yourself is always worth while) You listen to Joe rogan and that crackpot Suzanne humphreys? The one that claimed that the polio vaccine doesn’t work? Evolution really works in strange ways
Like I said it was an interesting episode, I'm not a scientist or an epidemiologist, but the points she made seem reasonable and logical to me. Feel free to bullet point the boys you disagree with and telle why. I'm always open to changing my mind 👍✌️
I won’t waste time listening to a well known grifter who spent years claiming crazy stuff. If you google her name followed by “misinformation “ you’ll find plenty of articles by journalists and fact checkers who took time to debunk her crazy claims.
As for rogan, he is a comedian and podcaster with zero scientific background but ready to sell his mother for a few more views. He allowed many conspiracy theorists on his show, without any balance whatsoever.
Before anyone starts talking about freedom of speech: it’s not the same as freedom to say dangerous lies. And rogan allowed many crazy people completely unchecked, often encouraging them. There’s nothing about free speech there, it’s just misinformation, lies and crazy conspiracies.
So you have an informed opinion about some people who you have not listened to but rather the the opinion of some strangers on the Internet and yet are critical of those who have actually listened to them.
No, Sherlock. I have a very informed opinion on anything related to medicine and I’ve been dealing with the damage done by these crooks on a daily basis. I know them, I know the utter nonsense they spout. I simply won’t write a dissertation here to demonstrate their lies when I can simply point you to articles that will do it for me.
Any other pointless reply, or do you want to read the stuff I pointed to the other user?
Why do you feel the need to be unpleasant?"Because I try to be pleasant, and people regularly think they know better. Despite me trying to explain in a few posts things that take years to manage. That’s the internet | |||
