COVID Vaccines Causally Linked to Increased Mortality, Resulting in 17 Million Deaths

[Scott]

This Stephanie Seneff is a computer science person. Not an epidemiologist. Not a virologist. She has also written papers indicating glyphosate as a cause for autism as well as a connection between it and COVID deaths.

She is considered a quack by experts who would know.

I noticed you couldn't muster the energy to refute even one word of the information provided. You're a good little leftist foot soldier aren't you? That's what they taught you in basic training right? If you can't discredit the message discredit the messenger. Extra grub for you at the mess hall tonight huh private?

I agree with your general sentiment, but I think that last sentence was counterproductive. Perhaps domer has made it clear somewhere that he's leftist, but I've known leftists who are against the Covid vaccines (I'm pretty sure that they're significantly rarer on the left than on the right, but they do exist). Sometimes I wonder if it's even possible to have a productive discussion on this subject because it almost always turns into an insult fest -.-

I’m a scientist and a realist.

That certainly sounds good so far...

I know how to sort through the bullshit and conspiracy garbage.

And here is where you go downhill. I just finished chiding someone who -agrees- with me on vaccines that his insults towards you weren't helping, so I'd be remiss to not point it out for someone who doesn't agree with me and/or my sources. If you disagree with a source of information, the right way to handle it is to point out its flaws. archives at least attempted this by pointing to sites that don't think highly of The Epoch Times and I responded to his post on this by pointing out evidence that his own sources lack credibility.

Better yet is to actually look at the study The Epoch Times is referencing and see if you can find any flaws in that.

 

[Scott]

I noticed you couldn't muster the energy to refute even one word of the information provided. You're a good little leftist foot soldier aren't you? That's what they taught you in basic training right? If you can't discredit the message discredit the messenger. Extra grub for you at the mess hall tonight huh private?

I agree with your general sentiment, but I think that last sentence was counterproductive. Perhaps domer has made it clear somewhere that he's leftist, but I've known leftists who are against the Covid vaccines (I'm pretty sure that they're significantly rarer on the left than on the right, but they do exist). Sometimes I wonder if it's even possible to have a productive discussion on this subject because it almost always turns into an insult fest -.-

I admit my passions get the better of me sometimes. This is not an excuse for the last line but an explanation, I get tried of the constant refusal by leftists to address the issue. They think if they have discredited a source then they believe they don't have to address the information. If they aren't stupid then they are doing it on purpose and discussions can't be had because they dont want discussion.

I think we can agree that they haven't actually discredited the source in this case. As I mentioned to domer, archives at least -tried- to discredit the immediate source (The Epoch Times) by pointing to some sites that don't like said source. I responded to this by pointing out information discrediting his own sources. The sad thing is that, like you said, they are so busy discrediting the messenger they pay little to no attention to the message. The message in this case is not actually from The Epoch Times at all, but rather from a study. Note that neither domer nor archives nor Nordberg has actually pointed to a single flaw in any of the findings of said study.

 

[Scott]

I admit my passions get the better of me sometimes. This is not an excuse for the last line but an explanation, I get tried of the constant refusal by leftists to address the issue. They think if they have discredited a source then they believe they don't have to address the information. If they aren't stupid then they are doing it on purpose and discussions can't be had because they dont want discussion.

You are to be a slave in the New World Order....power is not interested in your opinion.

I think we can agree that no organization holds absolute power. We all hold a bit, and I think it's a good thing that we all try to do our part to make a better world.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I think we can agree that no organization holds absolute power. We all hold a bit, and I think it's a good thing that we all try to do our part to make a better world.

Take a long look at the CCP.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Take a long look at the CCP.

Yes, look at them, Hawk.
They seem to be doing a better job that we, lately.

I'm a democratic socialist,
but the level to which we've fucked ourselves up
is now way beyond that
which can be repaired democratically.

It could be time for us to consider other models as well.

 

[domer76]

That certainly sounds good so far...



And here is where you go downhill. I just finished chiding someone who -agrees- with me on vaccines that his insults towards you weren't helping, so I'd be remiss to not point it out for someone who doesn't agree with me and/or my sources. If you disagree with a source of information, the right way to handle it is to point out its flaws. archives at least attempted this by pointing to sites that don't think highly of The Epoch Times and I responded to his post on this by pointing out evidence that his own sources lack credibility.

Better yet is to actually look at the study The Epoch Times is referencing and see if you can find any flaws in that.

Epoch times. A peer reviewed scientific journal, huh? Why don’t we see your claims in the scientific literature?

I already addressed your article and its author.

She’s a quack. Identified as such by REAL experts in the fields of epidemiology and virology.

What else do you have for us? That Antarctica is an airport for space aliens? JFK, Jr. returning soon?

 

[domer76]

I think we can agree that they haven't actually discredited the source in this case. As I mentioned to domer, archives at least -tried- to discredit the immediate source (The Epoch Times) by pointing to some sites that don't like said source. I responded to this by pointing out information discrediting his own sources. The sad thing is that, like you said, they are so busy discrediting the messenger they pay little to no attention to the message. The message in this case is not actually from The Epoch Times at all, but rather from a study. Note that neither domer nor archives nor Nordberg has actually pointed to a single flaw in any of the findings of said study.

The “study” is authored by a quack.

 

[Yakuda]

I think we can agree that they haven't actually discredited the source in this case. As I mentioned to domer, archives at least -tried- to discredit the immediate source (The Epoch Times) by pointing to some sites that don't like said source. I responded to this by pointing out information discrediting his own sources. The sad thing is that, like you said, they are so busy discrediting the messenger they pay little to no attention to the message. The message in this case is not actually from The Epoch Times at all, but rather from a study. Note that neither domer nor archives nor Nordberg has actually pointed to a single flaw in any of the findings of said study.

When they start yapping about the source I know they realize they've lost the argument. They cant debate the issue so they need to attack the source.

 

[Scott]

And here is where you go downhill. I just finished chiding someone who -agrees- with me on vaccines that his insults towards you weren't helping, so I'd be remiss to not point it out for someone who doesn't agree with me and/or my sources. If you disagree with a source of information, the right way to handle it is to point out its flaws. archives at least attempted this by pointing to sites that don't think highly of The Epoch Times and I responded to his post on this by pointing out evidence that his own sources lack credibility.

Better yet is to actually look at the study The Epoch Times is referencing and see if you can find any flaws in that.

Epoch times. A peer reviewed scientific journal, huh?

Always focusing on the messenger instead of the message. No, the Epoch Times isn't a scientific journal. I never claimed it was. Like most news sites, its function is to provide information. That information can -come- from scientific journals. Apparently in your haste to discredit The Epoch Times, you never noticed the main source of information for this article from Epoch Times. No, it's not Ms. Seneff. She only comments on the main source. The main source is a pre print from Correlation Research in the Public Interest. It was mentioned in the second paragraph of the quote in the opening post, along with a link to their work itself, but apparently you missed that and skipped to the 5th paragraph wherein Ms. Seneff helps explain the importance of their findings.

So how about focusing on the first 4 paragraphs on the article instead of skipping off to Seneff's 5th and perhaps for this reason apparently coming to the false conclusion that she wrote the article?

 

[Scott]

When they start yapping about the source I know they realize they've lost the argument. They cant debate the issue so they need to attack the source.

I don't mind a grumble about the immediate source of information, but it's pretty disheartening when in their zeal to protest the immediate source, they fail to notice that the main source isn't even the source they're so heartily protesting.

 

[domer76]

Always focusing on the messenger instead of the message. No, the Epoch Times isn't a scientific journal. I never claimed it was. Like most news sites, its function is to provide information. That information can -come- from scientific journals. Apparently in your haste to discredit The Epoch Times, you never noticed the main source of information for this article from Epoch Times. No, it's not Ms. Seneff. She only comments on the main source. The main source is a pre print from Correlation Research in the Public Interest. It was mentioned in the second paragraph of the quote in the opening post, along with a link to their work itself, but apparently you missed that and skipped to the 5th paragraph wherein Ms. Seneff helps explain the importance of their findings.

So how about focusing on the first 4 paragraphs on the article instead of skipping off to Seneff's 5th and perhaps for this reason apparently coming to the false conclusion that she wrote the article?

She’s a quack. The reason it’s in Epoch Times is because it can’t pass muster for a scientific journal.

When it does, post it. Until then, it’s pseudoscience.

Comprende?

 

[Scott]

Always focusing on the messenger instead of the message. No, the Epoch Times isn't a scientific journal. I never claimed it was. Like most news sites, its function is to provide information. That information can -come- from scientific journals. Apparently in your haste to discredit The Epoch Times, you never noticed the main source of information for this article from Epoch Times. No, it's not Ms. Seneff. She only comments on the main source. The main source is a pre print from Correlation Research in the Public Interest. It was mentioned in the second paragraph of the quote in the opening post, along with a link to their work itself, but apparently you missed that and skipped to the 5th paragraph wherein Ms. Seneff helps explain the importance of their findings.

So how about focusing on the first 4 paragraphs on the article instead of skipping off to Seneff's 5th and perhaps for this reason apparently coming to the false conclusion that she wrote the article?

She’s a quack.

Apparently, your fixation on Ms. Seneff is severe. I'll leave you to it.

 

[domer76]

Apparently, your fixation on Ms. Seneff is severe. I'll leave you to it.

When my car mechanic writes a paper on quantum physics, I’ll post it for you.

 

[Cypress]

The Epoch Times

^^ Not a reputable source.

 

[Scott]

When my car mechanic writes a paper on quantum physics, I’ll post it for you.

Apparently you still haven't noticed that Ms. Seneff wasn't one of the authors of the study The Epoch Times referenced.

 

[domer76]

Apparently you still haven't noticed that Ms. Seneff wasn't one of the authors of the study The Epoch Times referenced.

Hickey is. The lone “employee” of the non-profit group conducting the “study”.

Guess what? He’s an anti-vaxxer who got fired from his previous job for refusing the COVID vaccine. He’s also no epidemiologist or virologist.

 

[Scott]

^^ Not a reputable source.

According to who? I will say this, I don't agree with everything published on The Epoch Times. I do think their coverage of Covid vaccines has been very good though.

 

[Scott]

Apparently you still haven't noticed that Ms. Seneff wasn't one of the authors of the study The Epoch Times referenced.

Hickey is. The lone “employee” of the non-profit group conducting the “study”. Guess what? He’s an anti-vaxxer who got fired from his previous job for refusing the COVID vaccine. He’s also no epidemiologist or virologist.

I find it rather comical how you use quotes here. Is or isn't Jospeh Hickey an employee of Correlation Research in the Public Interest? Same thing with whether or not it's a study. Putting quotes around the words is all fine and good for a sound bite, but I think it's time you make up your mind.

As to Dr. Hickey being fired, his description of his leaving his former employer is more nuanced. Quoting from it:

**
He worked as a data scientist at the Bank of Canada until his refusal to comply with the federal government’s vaccination mandate resulted in the end of his employment, by mutual agreement with his employer.
**

Source:
https://correlation-canada.org/about/

The embedded link in the quote above leads to the following article:
Vaccine-declining data scientist Joseph Hickey settles with Bank of Canada | Ontario Civil Liberties Association

Now, I will admit that perhaps he's an anti-vaxxer as I am, but all the above article mentions is his refusal to get the covid shots. You may have heard that quite a lot of people refused to get it. Studies such as the one that Dr. Hickey wrote give ample reasons as to why they would not want to get it. But you didn't read the study now, did you? I mean, it seems you only just learned that Ms. Seneff wasn't the author of it, I suppose it's too much to ask that you read the actual study that is the focal point of this entire thread.

Finally, there's the fact that Joseph Hickey wasn't the only author of the paper. The complete list:
Denis G. Rancourt,1, * PhD ; Marine Baudin,2 PhD ; Joseph Hickey,1 PhD ;
Jérémie Mercier,2 PhD

Source:
https://correlation-canada.org/wp-c...vaccine-mortality-Southern-Hemisphere-cor.pdf

You have some insult ready for the rest of them too?

 

[domer76]

I find it rather comical how you use quotes here. Is or isn't Jospeh Hickey an employee of Correlation Research in the Public Interest? Same thing with whether or not it's a study. Putting quotes around the words is all fine and good for a sound bite, but I think it's time you make up your mind.

As to Dr. Hickey being fired, his description of his leaving his former employer is more nuanced. Quoting from it:

**
He worked as a data scientist at the Bank of Canada until his refusal to comply with the federal government’s vaccination mandate resulted in the end of his employment, by mutual agreement with his employer.
**

Source:
https://correlation-canada.org/about/

The embedded link in the quote above leads to the following article:
Vaccine-declining data scientist Joseph Hickey settles with Bank of Canada | Ontario Civil Liberties Association

Now, I will admit that perhaps he's an anti-vaxxer as I am, but all the above article mentions is his refusal to get the covid shots. You may have heard that quite a lot of people refused to get it. Studies such as the one that Dr. Hickey wrote give ample reasons as to why they would not want to get it. But you didn't read the study now, did you? I mean, it seems you only just learned that Ms. Seneff wasn't the author of it, I suppose it's too much to ask that you read the actual study that is the focal point of this entire thread.

Finally, there's the fact that Joseph Hickey wasn't the only author of the paper. The complete list:
Denis G. Rancourt,1, * PhD ; Marine Baudin,2 PhD ; Joseph Hickey,1 PhD ;
Jérémie Mercier,2 PhD

Source:
https://correlation-canada.org/wp-c...vaccine-mortality-Southern-Hemisphere-cor.pdf

You have some insult ready for the rest of them too?

LOL

Right. “By mutual agreement”. Are you really that fucking gullible?

I read enough about Hickey and Seneff and your non-peer reviewed paper to have no need to go further.

An anti-vaxxer with a non-peer reviewed paper about 17 Southern Hemisphere 2nd and 3rd world countries just doesn’t pique my interest. Other than pointing out the gullibility of you anti-vaxxers accepting whatever bullshit that fills your needs.

 

[Scott]

I find it rather comical how you use quotes here. Is or isn't Jospeh Hickey an employee of Correlation Research in the Public Interest? Same thing with whether or not it's a study. Putting quotes around the words is all fine and good for a sound bite, but I think it's time you make up your mind.

As to Dr. Hickey being fired, his description of his leaving his former employer is more nuanced. Quoting from it:

**
He worked as a data scientist at the Bank of Canada until his refusal to comply with the federal government’s vaccination mandate resulted in the end of his employment, by mutual agreement with his employer.
**

Source:
https://correlation-canada.org/about/

The embedded link in the quote above leads to the following article:
Vaccine-declining data scientist Joseph Hickey settles with Bank of Canada | Ontario Civil Liberties Association

Now, I will admit that perhaps he's an anti-vaxxer as I am, but all the above article mentions is his refusal to get the covid shots. You may have heard that quite a lot of people refused to get it. Studies such as the one that Dr. Hickey wrote give ample reasons as to why they would not want to get it. But you didn't read the study now, did you? I mean, it seems you only just learned that Ms. Seneff wasn't the author of it, I suppose it's too much to ask that you read the actual study that is the focal point of this entire thread.

Finally, there's the fact that Joseph Hickey wasn't the only author of the paper. The complete list:
Denis G. Rancourt,1, * PhD ; Marine Baudin,2 PhD ; Joseph Hickey,1 PhD ;
Jérémie Mercier,2 PhD

Source:
https://correlation-canada.org/wp-c...vaccine-mortality-Southern-Hemisphere-cor.pdf

You have some insult ready for the rest of them too?

LOL

Right. “By mutual agreement”.

Yes, by mutual agreement, after a lengthy appeal of his being placed on unpaid leave for refusing to take the covid shots. Clearly, you never read the embedded article I referred to in my previous post. I'll quote it for you since I doubt you'd expend the effort to click on the link yourself:

**
OCLA Executive Director Joseph Hickey was previously employed by the Bank of Canada as a Data Scientist.

Hickey was placed on unpaid leave without benefits in November 2021 for refusing to receive a COVID-19 vaccination. In March 2022, Hickey filed an extensive internal appeal of the Bank’s denial of his request for an accommodation to continue working from home.

Hickey’s appeal submission is here: https://ocla.ca/data-scientist-file...bank-of-canadas-mandatory-vaccination-policy/

A media article about Hickey’s appeal was published by the Western Standard on March 23, 2022: https://archive.ph/vwCV1

In October 2022, Hickey and the Bank mutually agreed to resolve all outstanding issues and end the employment relationship, to the satisfaction of both sides.
**

Source:
Vaccine-declining data scientist Joseph Hickey settles with Bank of Canada | Ontario Civil Liberties Association