Rosalind F

I think those people need a check up from the neck up and should go revisit their history books. The only senator I saw spewing such nonsense was Republican Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/joe-biden-should-consider-nuclear-strike-on-russia-over-ukraine-e2-80-94gop-senator/ar-AARBmLv
 
 
 

LOL, "feminazi"! I see St. Rush may be dead but still speaks with the tongues of others in his afterlife. 
 
Feminism is quite simply the radical belief that women are human beings, deserving of the same respect and dignity as men. (I am not descending into the whole "ZOMG there are 67,541.82 genders so whyyyyyyy are you only talking about two sexes, maven, you are going to bad liberal girl jail" which trust me is not as hot as it sounds.) I am a lifelong feminist, raised by feminists, educated by feminists. My long-time boyfriend is Southern man, born and bred -- and a feminist. I would hazard that most if not all of my close friends are feminists. I am also an elitist scumbag of the highest order who has more pieces of parchment up on the wall giving me letters after my name than I know what to do with. I don't have kids, don't want kids, love my career, am loved with the heat of a thousand suns by my man, and have in general a pretty great life. 
 
And as a feminist, I don't want exactly that for every woman. I want -- like nearly every feminist out there except for the most radical whackadoos posting on Tumblr -- every woman to be able to make her own choices about the direction of her life. You want to be a homemaker? Cool, very hard job. You want to be a lawyer? Seriously, get your head examined, but good on ye, lassie. But what if you change your mind? Isn't that a woman's right? Sure, knock yer socks off. Let it all hang out, freak flag flying for being a stay-at-home mom or a groovy astrophysicist or a stone cold fox of a trophy wife. You do you, boo. You don't even have to be a feminist yourself for me to wish this for you. 
 
Men like Herr Professor in the OP's post should consider teaching at a men's college if they're so concerned about women getting their pretty little heads turned by book-larnin' and forget about the ultimate goal of being a woman: a wife and a mother. Part of being the solution is not being part of the problem, non?
 
We are told not to believe the most radical members of certain groups do not represent the mainstream. The same holds true for feminists. Peace out, back to work emasculating nearly one half of the populace. 

I love how people with NO medical education all the sudden are experienced in immunology and use Google as the main source of information and feel brave enough to comment about it. 
 
Without tRump none of this was controversial.    

https://gizmodo.com/9-antivax-lies-to-watch-out-for-this-holiday-1848113384
 
Satanic ingredients, mass death, and other debunked talking points from the anti-vaccination movement.

“The vaccines are based on untested, dangerous technology.”

This claim is centered mainly around the covid vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, which both are based on mRNA technology. These are the first mRNA vaccines authorized or approved for use in humans, but the underlying research needed to develop them has been ongoing for decades. Scientists were testing out mRNA vaccines in human trials even before the pandemic arrived in late 2019.
The pandemic did accelerate the course of typical vaccine development, which usually takes years, but much of this speed was gained by the legwork already done on mRNA vaccines, the huge marshaling of resources, including financial, needed to conduct large clinical trials, and the expedited review of the data by health agencies—not by cutting corners in the trials themselves.

“mRNA vaccines change your DNA.”
.
“Vaccinated people are ‘shedding’ onto others.”

“The shots contain scary and/or satanic ingredients.”

“The vaccines are killing more people than the virus is.”

“Vaccines don’t prevent transmission.”

“The need for boosters proves the vaccines are useless.”

“Outbreaks in highly vaccinated countries show vaccines don’t work.”

“Kids don’t need the vaccine.”

That article's headline doesn't match what's actually in the reporting. Two things are happening: (1) Novavax has had its first vaccine approved by a number of countries over the past few weeks, and that vaccine has been in the works for nearly a year and (2) Novavax is now looking to see if it can tweak the existing formulation to fight Omicron. That's it.
 
But that isn't as interesting I suppose as making stuff up about Novavax somehow knowing about Omicron before December 2020.
 
Sources:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/nov/24/novavax-expected-to-be-approved-as-fourth-covid-vaccine-in-uk (background about Novavax)
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/novavax-testing-vaccine-that-targets-new-covid-19-variant-2021-11-26/ (Novavax working on developing a spike protein to fight Omicron)
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/us-clinical-trial-results-show-novavax-vaccine-safe-prevents-covid-19 (first studies starting in December 2020)

Why can't people just decide to have or not have kids if they do or don't want to? I mean that certainly seems to be what we generally do anyway.
 
I actually know some evangelical parents, that after having a boatload of their own kids, are actively encouraging their kids not to procreate, out of the philosophy that the world is 'evil', going to end, and there's no use for kids in it anyway. *shrugs* A bit nutty if you ask me, but it does seem to overlap with those younger and more environmentally minded individuals that simply feel the state of the current world is no place to raise a kid. To some degree I think there are just many couples that are not ready in any way to have kids. Millennials, as the commentary notes, may live with their parents, although it never gets into the reasons why. Economically, many young people are forced with the burdens of caring for unwell and aging parents that made no attempt at preparing for their futures. I know this is my case, certainly. I cannot devote the time I'd love to for children - I have 'adults' to care for. The writer asks the question "who will take care of you, when you're old?" Whelp, I've been through hell and back in that regard man... and I got to tell you, I'd never ask that question or ever DARE to force that choice on my children if I ever have them.
 
The rest of the 'article' seems nonsense to me. 

How is it relevant to the topic? 

How is it relevant to the topic? 

No, did you even look at my reply?  I looked at the video, and the research is poorly done and poorly presented. 
 
Somebody else found the actual CV that was submitted by Dr. Flemming for court https://forbetterscience.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/fleming-cv-redacted.pdf (no mention of PhD!) and a nice detailed post about the person's story https://forbetterscience.com/2021/09/27/cheshire-vs-dr-who/. 
 
Anyhow, the guy is a fraud and a felon with paper track of messing with data (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/clc.23047), and the presented "research" fits this picture perfectly. 
 

No, did you even look at my reply?  I looked at the video, and the research is poorly done and poorly presented. 
 
Somebody else found the actual CV that was submitted by Dr. Flemming for court https://forbetterscience.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/fleming-cv-redacted.pdf (no mention of PhD!) and a nice detailed post about the person's story https://forbetterscience.com/2021/09/27/cheshire-vs-dr-who/. 
 
Anyhow, the guy is a fraud and a felon with paper track of messing with data (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/clc.23047), and the presented "research" fits this picture perfectly. 
 

For a researcher, the reputation matters a lot. One lie ruins the reputation. I read about PhD degrees taken away because of falsified or fabricated data. 
I honestly opened the link you provided fully prepared to evaluate the methodology, look at the statistical analysis, check the hypothesis. But this research was done so poorly that I could not help but go check this person's biography. So yes, I checked the messenger - of course I did and gosh I'm glad I did! 
 
And no, it is way more than accounting error that got him convicted. It is the pattern of behaviour. 
He falsified data many times in his previous works, and his papers were rejected (not accepted to publication) and retracted (withdrawn from publication) because of him lying many times, again and again. It's a pattern. 
 
Re: his PhD, if you follow the comments section in the RetractionWatch article from 2018, this Fleming guy himself came in the comments section to argue with people. But he never answered the simplest question "where did you get your PhD from?". He got MD and JD (from an online school) - that was verified, but he also claims to have a PhD which he could not say where from. 
 
If that's the guy you choose to believe... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
 
 

For a researcher, the reputation matters a lot. One lie ruins the reputation. I read about PhD degrees taken away because of falsified or fabricated data. 
I honestly opened the link you provided fully prepared to evaluate the methodology, look at the statistical analysis, check the hypothesis. But this research was done so poorly that I could not help but go check this person's biography. So yes, I checked the messenger - of course I did and gosh I'm glad I did! 
 
And no, it is way more than accounting error that got him convicted. It is the pattern of behaviour. 
He falsified data many times in his previous works, and his papers were rejected (not accepted to publication) and retracted (withdrawn from publication) because of him lying many times, again and again. It's a pattern. 
 
Re: his PhD, if you follow the comments section in the RetractionWatch article from 2018, this Fleming guy himself came in the comments section to argue with people. But he never answered the simplest question "where did you get your PhD from?". He got MD and JD (from an online school) - that was verified, but he also claims to have a PhD which he could not say where from. 
 
If that's the guy you choose to believe... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
 
 

This Richard M. Fleming? https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/09/28/2018-21210/richard-m-fleming-denial-of-hearing-final-debarment-order
This one, right? https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/omaha/press-releases/2009/om082009.htm
Not one but two articles were devoted to this person on RetractionWatch  https://retractionwatch.com/2018/11/13/a-convicted-felon-writes-a-paper-on-hotly-debated-diets-what-could-go-wrong/ (2018) https://retractionwatch.com/2020/05/29/a-convicted-felon-wants-people-to-enroll-in-a-covid-19-clinical-trial-what-could-go-wrong/ (2020)
 
Healthcare fraud, mail fraud, fabricating data for clinical trials? Papers retracted because of made up data and undisclosed conflict of interest? InfoWars as a platform? Every detail in this person's biography screams fraud. 
And it looks like the guy never earned his PhD that he claims to have?
 
Wow, reading about this person turned out to be truly fascinating! I really appreciate your post!
 
And for the "presentation". It has extremely poor methodology, and the results cannot support Dr. Fleming's conclusions. 

This Richard M. Fleming? https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/09/28/2018-21210/richard-m-fleming-denial-of-hearing-final-debarment-order
This one, right? https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/omaha/press-releases/2009/om082009.htm
Not one but two articles were devoted to this person on RetractionWatch  https://retractionwatch.com/2018/11/13/a-convicted-felon-writes-a-paper-on-hotly-debated-diets-what-could-go-wrong/ (2018) https://retractionwatch.com/2020/05/29/a-convicted-felon-wants-people-to-enroll-in-a-covid-19-clinical-trial-what-could-go-wrong/ (2020)
 
Healthcare fraud, mail fraud, fabricating data for clinical trials? Papers retracted because of made up data and undisclosed conflict of interest? InfoWars as a platform? Every detail in this person's biography screams fraud. 
And it looks like the guy never earned his PhD that he claims to have?
 
Wow, reading about this person turned out to be truly fascinating! I really appreciate your post!
 
And for the "presentation". It has extremely poor methodology, and the results cannot support Dr. Fleming's conclusions. 

This Richard M. Fleming? https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/09/28/2018-21210/richard-m-fleming-denial-of-hearing-final-debarment-order
This one, right? https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/omaha/press-releases/2009/om082009.htm
Not one but two articles were devoted to this person on RetractionWatch  https://retractionwatch.com/2018/11/13/a-convicted-felon-writes-a-paper-on-hotly-debated-diets-what-could-go-wrong/ (2018) https://retractionwatch.com/2020/05/29/a-convicted-felon-wants-people-to-enroll-in-a-covid-19-clinical-trial-what-could-go-wrong/ (2020)
 
Healthcare fraud, mail fraud, fabricating data for clinical trials? Papers retracted because of made up data and undisclosed conflict of interest? InfoWars as a platform? Every detail in this person's biography screams fraud. 
And it looks like the guy never earned his PhD that he claims to have?
 
Wow, reading about this person turned out to be truly fascinating! I really appreciate your post!
 
And for the "presentation". It has extremely poor methodology, and the results cannot support Dr. Fleming's conclusions. 

https://ussanews.com/News1/2021/10/26/medical-bombshell-pfizer-vax-attacks-human-blood-creating-clots-under-microscope/
 
More evidence of what we already knew.

Just for your information, any time a new drug is developed, before this drug is given to humans it has to be given to at least two animal species (one rodent and one non-rodent, usually rats and dogs) .
 
I am not saying that described experiments are completely ethical (probably there are other ways to infect dogs, for example). But I doubt that Dr. Fauci personally ordered to torture puppies. 

VAERS is not the only or the best tool of pharmacovigilance. 

Not the ones that concern Scandinavian health authorities. 

Instead of Moderna shots the Scandinavian health authorities suggest Pfizer shots. 
https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-denmark-public-health-health-453163d8f93618fde90c06d3474921a0
 
The report is still to be reviewed by EMA. 

How about from the NHS's Genomics Education Programme, which is on their Health Education website: https://www.genomicseducation.hee.nhs.uk/blog/why-mrna-vaccines-arent-gene-therapies/
 
In my opinion, saying "I trust no one to have any truth about something" is a way of basically saying that there is no such thing as truth, which is sort of a nihilistic way of looking at the world. Reuters and AP have exceedingly long records of being relatively neutral and quite accurate sources. Do their reporters sometimes get things wrong? Yes, because reporting is done by humans who are fallible. 
 
Personally, I do not discount a source only because it comes from a direction I don't agree with. I look at whether or not what it's saying to me looks plausible, who is telling me, what their agenda might be, the tone of the piece (neutral reportage doesn't necessarily mean it's true though), and whether the source has a record of being correct more often than not. I welcome being wrong -- it's a chance to learn more and to test assumptions which is a necessary part of being a thinking human being. That doesn't mean I don't push back when my ideas are challenged, but it does mean I allow myself the chance to determine whether I'm wrong without going into a bunker mentality.

I'll just leave this here: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-mrna-gene/fact-check-mrna-vaccines-are-distinct-from-gene-therapy-which-alters-recipients-genes-idUSL1N2PH16N

What definition you are using to claim that COVID-19 vaccine is not a vaccine? Can you cite the reputable source? 

What definition you are using to claim that COVID-19 vaccine is not a vaccine? Can you cite the reputable source? 

What definition you are using to claim that COVID-19 vaccine is not a vaccine? Can you cite the reputable source?