https://giphy.com/joV1k1sNOT5xCIt is a listed side effect from the vaccines but this lot won’t even admit that it is even ‘rare’, they believe it genuinely cannot happen.
I have not seen any of them even say ‘well it’s possible that it could have been vaccine related as it is a listed side effect’.
It’s always got to be something else.
View attachment 887385View attachment 887386
Give us something to see instead of just saying, “open your eyes.”
I've just read that article. It's a journalists view on him and clearly has an intent to discredit him. Did you consider the bias of this source also? Or just assumed it must be completely unbiased because it suits your narrative?That said, Robert Malone has also had criticism for his views as well. Here's an article from The Atlantic magazine (there are others):
The Vaccine Scientist Spreading Vaccine Misinformation
Robert Malone claims to have invented mRNA technology. Why is he trying so hard to undermine its use?www.theatlantic.com
As the author states: a lot of Malone's comments are based on misinformation. He has suggested that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines might make Covid infections worse, which certainly hasn't been meted out by the numbers - i.e. the evidence.
You say we shouldn't believe everything the Government says (which I agree with), but similarly I'm not going to believe everything Robert Malone says either. Scientists often disagree with each other, which is healthy.
I think you should apply that same rational thinking to everything you read. For example, "what motivation/incentive/bias does this media outlet have for this article?"And I always think "what motivation does this person/organisation have to want to cast doubt on all MSM?" .
Good luck with thatIn the name of balance:
...
How about you start with listening to Dr Robert Malone, Dr Geert Vanden Bossche, Dr Mike Yeadon, Dr Roger Hodkinson, and Dr Byram Bridle instead of a professor pants down.Give us something to see instead of just saying, “open your eyes.”
The respectful and agreeful "Like" reactGood luck with that
I didn't say he was a loon, I was just saying not everything he says can, or indeed, should be taken without question, purely because of what he's done in the past. You were the one implying he was above question, yet you accuse me of trying to spin a narrative.I've just read that article. It's a journalists view on him and clearly has an intent to discredit him. Did you consider the bias of this source also? Or just assumed it must be completely unbiased because it suits your narrative?
I've quoted some below, and added my comments in italics.
"In that alternate media universe, Robert Malone’s star is ascendant. He started popping up on podcasts and cable news shows a few months ago, presented as a scientific expert, arguing that the approval process for the vaccines had been unwisely rushed (It has). He told Tucker Carlson that the public doesn’t have enough information to decide whether to get vaccinated (They don't). He told Glenn Beck that offering incentives for taking vaccines is unethical (It is). He told Del Bigtree, an anti-vaccine activist who opposes common childhood inoculations, that there hadn’t been sufficient research on how the vaccines might affect women’s reproductive systems (There hasn't). On show after show, Malone, who has quickly amassed more than 200,000 Twitter followers, casts doubt on the safety of the vaccines while decrying what he sees as attempts to censor dissent.
In addition to being a medical doctor, he has served as a vaccine consultant for pharmaceutical companies.
His objections to the Pfizer and Moderna shots have to do mostly with their expedited approval process and with the government’s system for tracking adverse reactions. Speaking as a doctor, he would probably recommend their use only for those at highest risk from COVID-19. Everyone else should be wary, he told me, and those under 18 should be excluded entirely."
I don't think any of the above paint him as a loon that doesn't know what he's talking about, regardless of the rest of the article trying to discredit him.
I'm also interested in the evidence you're using to quote the above in bold, that the vaccines won't make covid worse. He says they might. If we look at the high number of cases of people in hospital currently in Ireland, where they have very high vaccine takeup (93%) - I wonder what it is exactly you think all these people are in hospital for?
I think you should apply that same rational thinking to everything you read. For example, "what motivation/incentive/bias does this media outlet have for this article?"
How about you start with listening to Dr Robert Malone, Dr Geert Vanden Bossche, Dr Mike Yeadon, Dr Roger Hodkinson, and Dr Byram Bridle instead of a professor pants down.
I don't have an issue with the latter. If the only reply one can muster to a post of mine is a 'haha' reaction when it's obviously not intended to be humorous, then I'd say that's evidence I've made a good point...The respectful and agreeful "Like" react
The challenging your fake facts "Haha" react
At no point did I imply he was above question! I gave him as an example of a credible scientist.I didn't say he was a loon, I was just saying not everything he says can, or indeed, should be taken without question, purely because of what he's done in the past. You were the one implying he was above question, yet you accuse me of trying to spin a narrative.
Yeah but by describing him as 'credible' the implication is that we should assume he's right.At no point did I imply he was above question! I gave him as an example of a credible scientist.
Again, use the logic and principle you've quoted above to everything you read, and you may just start to open to your eyes and mind a little more.
Are they still classing these women as unvaccinated though until 14 days post vaccine? What if the vaccine caused the woman to go into premature labour a couple of days after vaccination with a still born baby, would this still be classed as unvaccinated? I haven't looked at the data thoroughly to see if it specifies.Similarities of stillbirths and preterm births for vaccinated and unvaccinated mothers.
Covid vaccines safe in pregnancy, data shows https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59417509
View attachment 887709
It doesn’t mention this but the rates are similar for vaccinated and unvaccinated.Are they still classing these women as unvaccinated though until 14 days post vaccine? What if the vaccine caused the woman to go into premature labour a couple of days after vaccination with a still born baby, would this still be classed as unvaccinated? I haven't looked at the data thoroughly to see if it specifies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?