Am i the only one here that doesn't smoke pot?
I don’t.
Work can do randoms and if I had an accident I’d get tested. Not worth the risk.
Am i the only one here that doesn't smoke pot?
Anyone can discredit a source and they do regularly. Nobody in here believes any link anyone posts if they disagree with the information in the link and then immediately discredit the source. This crap is going to be needlessly debated which is ridiculous because it's a fluid situation and regularly changes based on new information.I'm not even necessarily trying to change minds. I don't think Zrick and others are going to change their mind. At this point, I'm simply trying to identify what "facts" everyone is relying upon. I've noticed medRxIV links show up a bunch of times, so I became suspicious. MedRxIV articles simply are not credible since almost anyone can post an article on medRxIV. You can't do the same with peer reviewed white papers. At this point, I'm just asking if any of the any of the anti-vaxxers in this thread can cite a credible source for some of their claims.
Okay, here is why that study is unreliable and needs to be peer reviewed. Before I speak to that, let me first say... you do realize the idea is to NOT get COVID, right? I mean, if you're solution to getting the best immunity to COVID, which kills people, is to actually GET COVID in the first place so that you don't get it, again... don't you see the problem with that logic?
It's not ironic. I provided proof that MedRxIV is not a credible source of scientific info. He's yet to show me how Hans Von BadHombre was the lead German engineer on the VW GTI MK5.Lmao. The irony.
It's not ironic. I provided proof that MedRxIV is not a credible source of scientific info. He's yet to show me how Hans Von BadHombre was the lead German engineer on the VW GTI MK5.
I don’t.
Work can do randoms and if I had an accident I’d get tested. Not worth the risk.
Right there with you.Am i the only one here that doesn't smoke pot?
It's well written, it explains their sources and methodology and they actually back it up with numbers and outcomes for all patients involved. I have no issues with it. It doesn't exactly say they are dangerous thoughhttps://www.news-medical.net/news/2...-vaccines-re-evaluated-in-Canadian-study.aspx
Another pre-print study, so I guess that means the largest cardiovascular center in Canada is now putting out "junk science".
No, I think I've figured out everything I need to figure out about you. You have a low IQ. It's okay, you're still welcome to participate in the conversation.
Lol, I did not ignore anything... I mean, I just randomly picked MedRxIV and focused on it. That was the only one I looked at. Okay, if you think Nature.com has a credible article re why mRNA COVID vaccines are dangerous, then provide me a link of this article, and I'll look at that one as well. Show me what ya got...
I will admit I was wrong in that case.
I went to college with his nephew, true story.
off to go sit at my local YardHouse bar top unvaxxed..........
...so you vape it?Am i the only one here that doesn't smoke pot?
...so you vape it?