Here is an organized library of more than one thousand peer reviewed articles which show that Covid-19 "vaccines" are harmful.

[Reasonably Sane]

I believe I put this in the right forum category. I've not been vaccinated, so I'll just give the link. There are lots of links as well as information at the site. I'm hoping this may help people make a decision regarding a first vaccination or booster.

1000 peer reviewed articles on “Vaccine” injuries​

 

[sandman]

And yet... they keep pushing it.

 

[mourningdove~]

I believe I put this in the right forum category. I've not been vaccinated, so I'll just give the link. There are lots of links as well as information at the site. I'm hoping this may help people make a decision regarding a first vaccination or booster.

1000 peer reviewed articles on “Vaccine” injuries​

Thanks for sharing this link.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

And yet... they keep pushing it.

Fortunately we live in a world today where there is plenty of information out there, and those that are sincerely curious can find the info they need.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

On the same subject:
"Moderna Admits mRNA Covid Jab Causes Cancer, Billions of DNA Fragments Found in Vials"
https://www.reddit.com/r/VaccineMandates/comments/17y88rk

 

[Bradskii]

On the same subject:
"Moderna Admits mRNA Covid Jab Causes Cancer, Billions of DNA Fragments Found in Vials"
https://www.reddit.com/r/VaccineMandates/comments/17y88rk

Didn't you say that there is plenty of information out there? If there is, why just link to a Reddit post that was a regurgitated repeat of something the Epoch Times printed? You know, that bastion of medical information that we should all rely on. Based on a report by Joseph Mercola. This Jospeph Mercola:

The Most Influential Spreader of Coronavirus Misinformation Online (Published 2021)

Researchers and regulators say Joseph Mercola, an osteopathic physician, creates and profits from misleading claims about Covid-19 vaccines.

www.nytimes.com

So do you think we should investigate further as there is plenty of info out there? To save you the trouble, I did. For about 10 seconds. To find:

Claim that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines contain DNA contaminants based on study of vials of "unknown provenance"; no evidence COVID-19 mRNA vaccines can alter DNA in people

To date, claims that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines can alter DNA in people lack a biologically plausible mechanism to explain how this would happen. A certain proportion of polio vaccine administered between the 1950s and 1960s were contaminated with the virus SV40, which can cause tumors in animals...

healthfeedback.org

Which completely and comprehensively debunks everything Mercola said. Lucky for us there is plenty of incormation out there so we don't have to rely on Reddit!

 

[sandman]

Fortunately we live in a world today where there is plenty of information out there, and those that are sincerely curious can find the info they need.

Today …yes

But back when this started they lied about the efficacy…. Suppressed, shadow banned, deleted any opposition. …and ostracized those without the card of beast (vax card)

Demonized opposing scientists, and fired non-conforming Doctors …fired the hero nurses who withstood the first wave, but refused the jab when it came out. Take the poison or be fired for… government workers, military, airlines, and many businesses.

Demonized Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, and later some Monoclonal antibody therapy treatments and promoted the killer Remdesivir as standard protocol for all healthcare facilities.

Promoted social distance, masks, closing schools, shutting down small businesses.

Banned (in some states) the sale of seeds, arts and crafts, paint carpet and flooring, clothing, consumer electronics, furniture, home and garden, jewelry, photo services, sports equipment, toys etc.

 

[Bradskii]

I believe I put this in the right forum category. I've not been vaccinated, so I'll just give the link. There are lots of links as well as information at the site. I'm hoping this may help people make a decision regarding a first vaccination or booster.

1000 peer reviewed articles on “Vaccine” injuries​

And while we're at it, this 'article' is by Mark Trozzi. I won't call him Doctor Mark Trozzi as he is now unlicensed. The Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Disciplinary Tribunal found him to be professionally incompetent, guilty of professional misconduct and engaged in disgraceful and dishonorable conduct. Ouch...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720122455119806641

This is the guy you want people to trust? Of course you don't. You just forgot to check on who is is. Lucky for us there is 'plenty of information out there' so we can check on the bona fide of these people.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

And while we're at it, this 'article' is by Mark Trozzi. I won't call him Doctor Mark Trozzi as he is now unlicensed. The Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Disciplinary Tribunal found him to be professionally incompetent, guilty of professional misconduct and engaged in disgraceful and dishonorable conduct. Ouch...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720122455119806641

This is the guy you want people to trust? Of course you don't. You just forgot to check on who is is. Lucky for us there is 'plenty of information out there' so we can check on the bona fide of these people.

That is nothing more than an ad-hominem attack on the guy who compiled a list of links that do exactly what is claimed about them. Did you look at any of the links, to actual peer reviewed articles? Look at the link addresses. These are not guys in their mother's basements.

Frankly, sometimes you can judge a man by the enemies he makes. In this case, Trozzi comes out smelling like a rose.

 

[Bradskii]

That is nothing more than an ad-hominem attack on the guy who compiled a list of links...

Dunno about you, but the quality of the information I am given depends quite a lot on the character of the person giving it to me. That is, is he trustworthy. Your source fails dismally on that particular count.

And we have already checked the veracity of other articles you have posted. They are not worth anyone's time reading. For the reasons given.

If you have something else that could be worthwhile, then please post it. We'll all be pleased to investigate it. Because there's a lot of information out there that enables us to do so.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Dunno about you, but the quality of the information I am given depends quite a lot on the character of the person giving it to me. That is, is he trustworthy. Your source fails dismally on that particular count.

And we have already checked the veracity of other articles you have posted. They are not worth anyone's time reading. For the reasons given.

If you have something else that could be worthwhile, then please post it. We'll all be pleased to investigate it. Because there's a lot of information out there that enables us to do so.

I'm talking about HIS sources. The links. Would it be better if I just include them here directly?.

BTW, I learned a while back to not trust any news source that had to pay a settlement to Nick Sandmann.

I will say that I didn't include the InfoWars link to the story in my second post because he is "infamously" not a trusted source. They will see the name of the site and shut down immediately. So I linked to it from other sources.

What's kinda comical is that even the National gets it right sometimes.

Thing is, when a poorly trusted source presents a story, but nobody else presents the same story, one should question if it is real. But when they offer background information and links (in this case, a LOT of links), it may behoove one to avail themself to a couple of those links just to see if the story is legit. It's what I did in this case and I was rewarded with solid information. In fact, it makes you wonder if this guy may have gotten a bad rap. i.e. should I trust the sources that are disrespecting him.

Remember, a case can be made against literally any source. The only perfect man to ever live was hung on a cross.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm talking about HIS sources. The links. Would it be better if I just include them here directly?.

Not in the slightest. You've poisoned the well by going directly to two people who are known to lie about the matter at hand. That you specifically chose those two tells me that I shouldn't expect any reasonable discussion to follow. Not that I'm the slightest bit interested in having one on this matter in any case. But I'm sure that you'll find some others who might enjoy a chat about it. There are quite a few in this forum who hold your views.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Not in the slightest. You've poisoned the well by going directly to two people who are known to lie about the matter at hand. That you specifically chose those two tells me that I shouldn't expect any reasonable discussion to follow. Not that I'm the slightest bit interested in having one on this matter in any case. But I'm sure that you'll find some others who might enjoy a chat about it. There are quite a few in this forum who hold your views.

Well, clearly opinions vary. I see I've poisoned the well in YOUR mind. I get the feeling you and I may not trust the same sources.

 

[Bradskii]

Well, clearly opinions vary. I see I've poisoned the well in YOUR mind. I get the feeling you and I may not trust the same sources.

The doubts that I have are specifically about those people who choose to use sources such as you did for their information. As I said, if those two men are people you trust to give an unbiased appraisal of the matter, then I see no hope in having a reasonable discussion.

Not that I have any interest in having one.These matters have been done to death over multiple threads over quite a long time. You'll note that this thread has had 13 posts. And 11of those are yours and mine. And I won't be adding to them.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

The doubts that I have are specifically about those people who choose to use sources such as you did for their information. As I said, if those two men are people you trust to give an unbiased appraisal of the matter, then I see no hope in having a reasonable discussion.

Not that I have any interest in having one.These matters have been done to death over multiple threads over quite a long time. You'll note that this thread has had 13 posts. And 11of those are yours and mine. And I won't be adding to them.

I trust the sources they linked to. YMMV.

You're still in Ad-hominem attack mode. You have not yet said one word about the information from the peer reviewed articles. And at the end of the day, I was just trying to expose people to the information to which they linked. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.