Alex Jones is angry at Donald Trump

I have reason to believe that people that reacted negatively to the vaccines are a significantly negligible percent within the excess death statistics.

___
.
Then why is it that the mRNA injections have worse stats than all standard vaccines, in the last 30 years, combined?

There's what is called the "5 - 50" rule in medicine, which is that, if 5 people die, from a new drug or vaccine, then investigation and caution are required; if 50 people die, then the rollout should stop, until or unless the problem is solved. Millions of people have died from these mRNA shots, so why is there no MSM call for these jabs to be stopped immediately, pending urgent investigation?
 
What reason would that be?

" MBFC follows a strict methodology for determining the biases of sources. Dave Van Zandt is the primary editor for sources. He is assisted by a collective of volunteers who assist in research for many sources listed on these pages. MBFC also provides occasional fact checks, original articles on media bias, and breaking/important news stories, especially as it relates to USA politics. "

___

Reference: CUNY Library
.
 
" MBFC follows a strict methodology for determining the biases of sources. Dave Van Zandt is the primary editor for sources. He is assisted by a collective of volunteers who assist in research for many sources listed on these pages. MBFC also provides occasional fact checks, original articles on media bias, and breaking/important news stories, especially as it relates to USA politics. "

___

Reference: CUNY Library
.
So, your reason for trusting MBFC is what it says about itself, rather than any objective measure. Not only that, but what it says about itself, in the quote you've provided, does not even describe what its methodology is (it could be anything).

Can you see why this is less than impressive?
 
Then why is it that the mRNA injections have worse stats than all standard vaccines, in the last 30 years, combined?

There's what is called the "5 - 50" rule in medicine, which is that, if 5 people die, from a new drug or vaccine, then investigation and caution are required; if 50 people die, then the rollout should stop, until or unless the problem is solved. Millions of people have died from these mRNA shots, so why is there no MSM call for these jabs to be stopped immediately, pending urgent investigation?

Where did you receive your information? Let's look at Table 2 below:

From the International Journal of Medical Science, March 2023, volume 24, page 5944*

Table 2.jpg
____

* Reference: Advantages and Caveats

.
 
So, your reason for trusting MBFC is what it says about itself, rather than any objective measure. Not only that, but what it says about itself, in the quote you've provided, does not even describe what its methodology is (it could be anything).

Can you see why this is less than impressive?

err... The information comes from the CUNY Library graduate school of journalism.

___
.
 
Where did you receive your information? Let's look at Table 2 below:

From the International Journal of Medical Science, March 2023, volume 24, page 5944*

View attachment 5738
____

* Reference: Advantages and Caveats

.
See the link below (and I could provide dozens more, from various sources).

 
err... The information comes from the CUNY Library graduate school of journalism.

___
.
My apologies, I didn't spot the link at the bottom of your post.

I've now had a look at MBFC's own statement of its methodology, and it includes this:

"Conspiracy/Pseudoscience

This category is for sources that disseminate unverified information related to known conspiracies or pseudoscientific claims. For instance, sources denying human-influenced climate change or promoting anti-vaccination stances are labeled as pseudoscience. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Science and Pseudoscience, there’s a consensus among knowledge disciplines that certain topics, like creationism and climate change denial, are pseudosciences. To be included in this category, a source’s primary focus must be on conspiracies or pseudoscience."

This is about as biased as it is possible to get and marks this site as being a disseminator of deceptive propaganda.
 
Every day I read an article about the problems with the Jab.

I read this today...."

Pathologist reports a stunning 52% increase in cancer risk for ages 15-59 who were vaxxed" (link)​


This was from yesterday...

How ‘Trusted’ Christian Pastors Coerced Congregations To Take Deadly COVID Vaccines Resulting In Untold Deaths (link)​


From the day before...

Evidence In Faces Shows Hydrogel ID System Already Deployed (link)​

and before that...

CDC Tells People 65 and Older to Take More COVID-19 Booster Shots (link)

and the day before that...

Covid injections can cause kidney injury and renal damage (link)​


And the previous day

Covid wasn’t an accident – it was a crime (link)​

And the day before that

Thousands Claim Dubious Chinese-Made Sinovac Vaccines Gave Them Leukemia, Diabetes (link)​

day before that...

25% of Vaxxed Now Have VAIDS, Top Scientists Warn (link)​


How far back should I go?

EVERYDAY...there is an article that shows the problems with the jab. EVERYDAY

I bet your scientist's studies in professional journals....don't even touch the subject of the jabs.....anything against the narrative they feed you is "false"....right?
anybody can read crazy conspiracy blogs daily
 
See the link below (and I could provide dozens more, from various sources).


I don't trust the environmental lawyer that operates this funding machine.

___
.
 
My apologies, I didn't spot the link at the bottom of your post.

I've now had a look at MBFC's own statement of its methodology, and it includes this:

"Conspiracy/Pseudoscience

This category is for sources that disseminate unverified information related to known conspiracies or pseudoscientific claims. For instance, sources denying human-influenced climate change or promoting anti-vaccination stances are labeled as pseudoscience. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Science and Pseudoscience, there’s a consensus among knowledge disciplines that certain topics, like creationism and climate change denial, are pseudosciences. To be included in this category, a source’s primary focus must be on conspiracies or pseudoscience."

This is about as biased as it is possible to get and marks this site as being a disseminator of deceptive propaganda.

Hmm.. That is why we will probably will not agree on a number of secular subjects here at CARM.

Stanford is a top-tier university for law, medicine, and engineering physics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is primarily intended for academic studies. Students depend on it as a tried-and-true resource worldwide.

--- > Robert Kennedy's continuous fund-raising website called "Children's Health Defense" - not so much.

____
.
 
Last edited:
You don't appear to have a reasonable justification for not trusting them. At the very least, you haven't provided one.
There are 10,000+ reasons not to trust peer reviewed papers:

10,000 Research Papers Were Retracted In 2023, Breaking Annual Records​

It was a bad year for science publishing with more than 10,000 research papers being retracted, setting a new record for the most retractions in a single year. The results suggest this is just a fraction of the dodgy papers still out there.

According to recent analysis conducted by Nature, the number of retractions issued in 2023 has surpassed previous annual records, with the worse offenders being from large research-publishing nations such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia, and China. These countries have had the highest retraction rates over the last two decades.

The publisher Hindawi, a London-based subsidiary of Wiley, has been responsible for most of the retractions to date. This year, the publisher has retracted over 8,000 articles due to what it believes are compromises to the peer-review process. This investigation was prompted by internal editors and research-integrity investigators who raised concerns about irrelevant references in thousands of papers, as well as incoherent text.

“In the dynamic world of scholarly publishing, researchers find themselves grappling between increasing pressures to publish and the growing vulnerability of the academic industry to systematic manipulation and fraudulent activity”, Hindawi has stated.



“As key players in the open access landscape, we faced serious disruptions and issued large numbers of article retractions in response to these research integrity challenges.”

One of the issues here has been Hindawi’s reliance on special issues, which are collections of articles that tend to be overseen by guest editors. These collections have become a focal point for scammers pretending to be guest editors so they can publish fake papers.

Although they have been “in the eye of this storm” in the last few years, Hindawi is not alone. This is a hurdle faced by all academic publishers and represents a major challenge for the future.

A rise in fraudulent efforts

The big issue, according to Richard Van Noorden of Nature, is “Retractions are rising at a rate that outstrips the growth of scientific papers.”

To investigate this, Nature combined the number of retractions collated by the media organization Retraction Watch with another 5,000 retractions from Hindawi and other publishers, with the help of the Dimensions database.

“Nature’s analysis suggests that the retraction rate – the proportion of papers published in any given year that go on to be retracted – has more than trebled in the past decade. In 2022, it exceeded 0.2 [percent].”

Among the countries that have had the highest numbers of retractions (more than 100,000 in the last 20 years), Saudi Arabia is the highest scoring with “30 per 10,000 articles” being retracted (excluding retractions based on conference papers).

“If conference papers are included, withdrawals from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) in New York City put China in the lead, with a retraction rate above 30 per 10,000 articles,” Van Noorden explains.

Representatives from IEEE have explained that they feel their preventive measure and efforts work well to catch most fraudulent papers thrown their way, but Retraction Watch has found issues such as “tortured phrases, citation fraud and plagiarism, in hundreds of IEEE papers published in the past few years,” Van Noorden adds.

However, IEEE has apparently evaluated those papers and has found fewer than 60 did not reach their publication standards, 39 of which have been retracted so far.

This is just the tip of a deep iceberg is seems, with papers created by paper mills – businesses that sell fake work and authorships – being one of the biggest contributors across the world. These papers still cause issues even if they are not read, because their results (alleged results) are included and aggregated with others when scientists write review articles.

Science in practice

Despite the disturbing rise in fake papers and dodgy authors, the fact that publishers are retracting these dishonest contributions is a strength of the scientific and scholarly publishing world. Being alive to the possibility of fraud, and willing to review the evidence and reject those that fail to meet our standards, demonstrates that there still is an appreciation for honesty and integrity within the system.

But with the growing ease with which misinformation can spread and scientific data can be created through AI tools such as ChatGPT, we all have to be aware that not everything we read is as it seems.

And that's just part of it:
 
There are 10,000+ reasons not to trust peer reviewed papers:


And that's just part of it:

Nice! I've watched this video a number of times and Dr. Derek Muller ends his presentation well, as usual. Now, about your statement: "There are 10,000 + reasons not to trust peer reviewed papers: "

- The fact that they are being discovered and tossed means that the scientific method continues to work.

I discussed this ---> here (Hindawi journals).

____
.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top