RIOV was demonstrated to be robust, and Lyons-Weiler and Blaylock had shown the well-child visit bias worked in our favor. New York Times did not investigate properly.
The New York Times exists to shape opinion, not to report. The thrust of the article was likely decided upon long before the reporter looked at the study.
After so many errors over the years, by media I’ve come to know that their errors can no longer be accidental. In fact, they’re more like lockstep, mockingbird, mass media, pHarma puppets,
For those folks who have not quite yet awoken to the egregious and insidious nature of complicit media, I’m grateful for your actual fact-checking. Thank you for keeping up with their lies and setting the record straight.
That opinion article is horrible saying antivax 61 times and unethical 21 times.
I reached out to Dr James and he had to once again defend his study (sorry Dr James).
My overall assessment is that provaxers are cult-like and will not make one iota of effort to look into the issue, they assume they are completely 100% correct that the imm schedule is completely safe and effective. Provaxers are completely ignorant to the truth. All the "antivaxers" (I hate this derogatory term) were much nicer and more informed. We need to break the vax cult for the benefit of our children!
I agree and I do to. I just wish we could come up with a term thats not derogatory. Something meaning "critical thinking, save the children" type term. I often think about the success of "Mom's against drunk driving, MADD" was a great campaign.
No matter what term or verbiage, a person who exercises the medical-ethical principle of informed consent to decline a jab will be viewed with a jaundiced eye. Some policy makers have placed parents into the "vaccine hesitant" thinking that there will be successful message that will override their hesitancy. Policy makers are always testing messages to see what works. Don't we know that.
Some people have decided the best way to define the camps as "pro-vaccine injury" and "pro-vaccine safety".
No apology necessary, happy to and able to defend my research anytime, anywhere. In debate, ad-hominem attacks are an admission of forfeit. If they have to attack me, my character, etc... they have lost. They know this, and worse: they know I know it.
Fine NYT. Just make all of these “miracles” optional. And see where us mouth breathers stand 20-30 years from now. I would say we could have a debate at that time, but most of you “educated” folks will be dead by then.
Thanks for the data that proves what we, the citizens already knew. Fear is their greatest weapon. There is no family they will not destroy for money and power. This is a ruling elite war against the People they consider "subhumans." This is child and fertility genocide in the guise of "help."
NY Slimes. Same paper as Pulitzer Prize winner Walter " I don't see no stinkin' starving kulaks in Stalin's Ukraine" Duranty (perhaps around 5 – 6 million were starved to death by Stalin in his Holodomor) to Lincoln "I have seen the future in Stalin's USSR, and it works" Steffens to another NY Slimes wunderkind, fiction writer Jayson Blair, who resigned in 2003 after he was outed for stories—some front page—that were fabricated or plagiarized. Less well known but equally egregious is The New York Times’ completely discredited stating Russia was paying Taliban-linked fighters to kill US in Afghanistan, or the Guardian’s discredited report that enemy of the state Paul Manafort paid visits to Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy. All done to advance a narrative. Then there is the classic Ghost of Kiev fighter pilot… later outed as a complete fabrication.And speaking of fake Pulitzer Prize winners, how about good old Janet Cook and here fake story in the Washington Post, Jimmy’s World. Duranty would be jealous. The story was later revealed as a complete fake.
likely Dr William Thompson. he's the one who told Dr Brian Hooker that they literally trashed (as in shredding into a trash can) the CDC study the showed that African American boys who got the MMR vax at an earlier age, as opposed to a later one, where several times more likely to get an autism dx. (very brief synopsis)
Could you kindly explain what this sentence means: 'But it’s atrocious journalism to cite and opinion blog article an opinion-based website that I have repeatedly had to correct after they conducted what they represent as “Fact-Checking”. ' Did you mean '...it's atrocious Journalism to cite an opinion blog article based on an opinion-base website...'
The New York Times exists to shape opinion, not to report. The thrust of the article was likely decided upon long before the reporter looked at the study.
I cancelled my subscription years ago. In fact, I renamed it "Behind-The New York Times."
After so many errors over the years, by media I’ve come to know that their errors can no longer be accidental. In fact, they’re more like lockstep, mockingbird, mass media, pHarma puppets,
For those folks who have not quite yet awoken to the egregious and insidious nature of complicit media, I’m grateful for your actual fact-checking. Thank you for keeping up with their lies and setting the record straight.
NYT relies on its lie to travel half way around the world before truth can get its shoes on
The same opinion blog article came up in a heated NextDoor article I posted trying to find daycare options for not following immunization schedule.
The nextdoor article got 629 comments and 23k views. https://nextdoor.com/p/wXsxn2Jt7Q9w?utm_source=share&extras=MTU3MTAyMTY%3D
That opinion article is horrible saying antivax 61 times and unethical 21 times.
I reached out to Dr James and he had to once again defend his study (sorry Dr James).
My overall assessment is that provaxers are cult-like and will not make one iota of effort to look into the issue, they assume they are completely 100% correct that the imm schedule is completely safe and effective. Provaxers are completely ignorant to the truth. All the "antivaxers" (I hate this derogatory term) were much nicer and more informed. We need to break the vax cult for the benefit of our children!
I wear the "anti-vax" label as a badge of honor. I think we should embrace it, and that doing so will remove the stigma associated with the term.
I agree and I do to. I just wish we could come up with a term thats not derogatory. Something meaning "critical thinking, save the children" type term. I often think about the success of "Mom's against drunk driving, MADD" was a great campaign.
If someone called you "anti-genocide," would you take umbrage? I think when we get defensive about being labeled anti-vaxxers, we give them power.
No matter what term or verbiage, a person who exercises the medical-ethical principle of informed consent to decline a jab will be viewed with a jaundiced eye. Some policy makers have placed parents into the "vaccine hesitant" thinking that there will be successful message that will override their hesitancy. Policy makers are always testing messages to see what works. Don't we know that.
Some people have decided the best way to define the camps as "pro-vaccine injury" and "pro-vaccine safety".
I counter with "vax-pusher"; language is important.
No apology necessary, happy to and able to defend my research anytime, anywhere. In debate, ad-hominem attacks are an admission of forfeit. If they have to attack me, my character, etc... they have lost. They know this, and worse: they know I know it.
Error to correct?
"in Dr. Paul Thomas’ practice, the UNvaccinated kids’ parents missed more well-child visits than the vaccinated."
One of several errors in this article, which I pointed out as well!
Yes, fixed, thank you.
Please correct the errors in this post. I am reluctant to share hastily edited articles as it detracts from their credibility.
Fine NYT. Just make all of these “miracles” optional. And see where us mouth breathers stand 20-30 years from now. I would say we could have a debate at that time, but most of you “educated” folks will be dead by then.
Thanks for the data that proves what we, the citizens already knew. Fear is their greatest weapon. There is no family they will not destroy for money and power. This is a ruling elite war against the People they consider "subhumans." This is child and fertility genocide in the guise of "help."
NY Slimes. Same paper as Pulitzer Prize winner Walter " I don't see no stinkin' starving kulaks in Stalin's Ukraine" Duranty (perhaps around 5 – 6 million were starved to death by Stalin in his Holodomor) to Lincoln "I have seen the future in Stalin's USSR, and it works" Steffens to another NY Slimes wunderkind, fiction writer Jayson Blair, who resigned in 2003 after he was outed for stories—some front page—that were fabricated or plagiarized. Less well known but equally egregious is The New York Times’ completely discredited stating Russia was paying Taliban-linked fighters to kill US in Afghanistan, or the Guardian’s discredited report that enemy of the state Paul Manafort paid visits to Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy. All done to advance a narrative. Then there is the classic Ghost of Kiev fighter pilot… later outed as a complete fabrication.And speaking of fake Pulitzer Prize winners, how about good old Janet Cook and here fake story in the Washington Post, Jimmy’s World. Duranty would be jealous. The story was later revealed as a complete fake.
See my Replacing the Fourth Estate: We Are the Journalists We Have Been Waiting For https://blaisevanne.substack.com/p/replacing-the-fourth-estate for what we can do about the fake news.
who is the CDC whistleblower Kennedy is referencing?
likely Dr William Thompson. he's the one who told Dr Brian Hooker that they literally trashed (as in shredding into a trash can) the CDC study the showed that African American boys who got the MMR vax at an earlier age, as opposed to a later one, where several times more likely to get an autism dx. (very brief synopsis)
Could you kindly explain what this sentence means: 'But it’s atrocious journalism to cite and opinion blog article an opinion-based website that I have repeatedly had to correct after they conducted what they represent as “Fact-Checking”. ' Did you mean '...it's atrocious Journalism to cite an opinion blog article based on an opinion-base website...'