This woman's tips are biased and not fully objective but rather subjective.
Tip#1 states that if something like a list of reagents is not published in the paper (but available), it indicates dishonesty.
No. sometimes non-essential items are reduced in a paper in order to condense the publishing size and make it a little more physically readable so that the reader does not have to slog through secondary details. And she says putting it in a supplemental doc is burying it. Not so.
Frei constantly pushes her MSc, perhaps to enhance her authority, but really, she's someone who got a degree but couldn't get a research job so she turned to writing - a real come-down.
If anything, Frei seems to be an agent tasked with dispelling claims that the vaccines cause any harm at all. I really get the impression she works for Big Pharma, and may even be paid by a vax mfr.
Oddly, I also get the impression Frei wears really ugly thick glasses and has a smug look all the time.
But it is good to know who pushes agendas and uses sophisticated smear logic such as hers.
Basically this is trash. The author's tip #2 is basically disregard all animal model and in vitro studies as "meaningless." They may not be as solid as a human study, but they are certainly not meaningless.
Except that what you present here is cherry picked and misses the big picture. Animals are very useful in finding out such information and should not be discounted. Most things bad for mice are bad for us. Imperfect yes, should it directly effect policy? Probably not...but certainly it is not "Bullshit" as the author put it.
First hint of bullshit, is it a narrative as a video only can be. Witch doctor bullshit. Wait wait you didn’t understand, I’m not done. Eschew ad-hockery.
This woman's tips are biased and not fully objective but rather subjective.
Tip#1 states that if something like a list of reagents is not published in the paper (but available), it indicates dishonesty. No. sometimes non-essential items are reduced in a paper in order to condense the publishing size and make it a little more physically readable so that the reader does not have to slog through secondary details. And she says putting it in a supplemental doc is burying it. Not so.
Frei constantly pushes her MSc, perhaps to enhance her authority, but really, she's someone who got a degree but couldn't get a research job so she turned to writing - a real come-down.
If anything, Frei seems to be an agent tasked with dispelling claims that the vaccines cause any harm at all. I really get the impression she works for Big Pharma, and may even be paid by a vax mfr.
Oddly, I also get the impression Frei wears really ugly thick glasses and has a smug look all the time.
But it is good to know who pushes agendas and uses sophisticated smear logic such as hers.
That's how government funded flat earthers operate. They pretend no evidence is evidence.
I keep losing track. Which alt are you again?
Yo momma
Basically this is trash. The author's tip #2 is basically disregard all animal model and in vitro studies as "meaningless." They may not be as solid as a human study, but they are certainly not meaningless.
Except that what you present here is cherry picked and misses the big picture. Animals are very useful in finding out such information and should not be discounted. Most things bad for mice are bad for us. Imperfect yes, should it directly effect policy? Probably not...but certainly it is not "Bullshit" as the author put it.
First hint of bullshit, is it a narrative as a video only can be. Witch doctor bullshit. Wait wait you didn’t understand, I’m not done. Eschew ad-hockery.
You have never in your life either "wrote" or "read" a "scientific medical paper" if you keep saying "viruses are dead cells"
Do you have any fucking evidence for your flat earth bullshit?
PLC seems to be on hiatus. Axo is top mod, and still regularly here, if not as frequently as previously. I am trying to spruce the place up a bit.
I have followed items you have posted, and you seem to be doing a decent job. Please continue the efforts.
Can you provide some evidence for your claim that "viruses are dead cells" or are you going to keep downvoting my comments?
You are not here in good faith. You are not here to have a conversation.
Dude, let it go. You're obsessed.
Dude, provide evidence instead of ad hominem attacks
Which seems to be your popular tactic... huh, kid?
LOL
What are you talking about? Use specific examples, buckaroo.
With what? Facts?
Viruses are NOT "dead cells" or "soap bubbles". Period. If you have any evidence at all then I'm open to discussing it.
I can't stand by and watch someone say the earth is flat or "Russia hacked the election with Facebook posts".
Are you going to call me "obsessed" for saying there's no evidence "Russia hacked the 2016 election" as well?
Just hand-waive away all the evidence like we're blue checks on twitter, right?
Judging by most of your interactions here, this is sadly not the case.
So you can judge, but not discuss the facts? Sounds like you should be a twitter mod instead of being here.
What evidence do you have to suggest viruses are "dead cells" or "soap bubbles"? That one video made by literal flat earthers? Where's the data?
Any more ad hominem attacks before you don't provide any evidence?