Second-View Research Analysis: 2024 Sep

VIDEO (above) Summary of their biased strategy:

1. exaggeration of [DRUG] benefits,

2. underrepresentation of [DRUG] harms/risks,

3. intentional failure to distinguish antibody responses from clinical efficacy/benefit as previously discussed [https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57030199]

4. zero mention of legitimate and proven options such as vitamin D, ivermectin, NAC, antihistamines, aspirin, steroids—if this had been a legitimate study of decision-making, then the authors would have given accurate and blinded/anonymous information about risks, benefits, costs and collateral risks and benefits on

   1. 1) the vaccines,

   2. 2) vitamin D,

   3. 3) ivermectin,

   4. 4) acetylcysteine/NAC ,

   5. 5) zinc, vitamin C, vitamin K,

   6. 6) vitamin C, antihistamines, steroids,

   7. 7) hydroxychloroquine [possibly], and 8) supportive care, steroids, and

   8. 8) mixed interventions; but the authors clearly did not want to design a study that accurately measured decision-making among accurately-represented options,

5. Interpretation of any disagreement (to their false information) as psychosocial defectiveness and intellectual incompetence to justify overriding of disagreement to authorize forced [DRUGGING].

6. An important part of the globalist agenda is to convert your "free speech" and nonpropagandized perspective into "hate speech" or "misinformation" or "disinformation" so they will have the excuse to censor, fine, or imprison anyone who disagrees with them.

Covid 19 Vaccine Refusal Is Driven By Deliberate Ignorance And Cognitive Distortions

1.44MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Fuławka, Hertwig, Pachur. COVID-19 [product] refusal is driven by deliberate ignorance and cognitive distortions. npj Vaccines 9, 167 (2024) i10.1038/s41541-024-00951-8

1.Obvious pro-[DRUG] bias, overinflating the benefits, failing to mention the risks, and not providing any alternatives: This is among the most dangerous articles ever published because (by using cherry-picked pro-[product] data which overemphasizes the benefits and fails to mention the ultimate risks of [product]) the authors/journal have created the illusion that anyone who does not enthusiastically accept these "[product]" is deliberately ignorant and has "cognitive distortions" rendering them intellectually incompetent: this conclusion will be used to enforce mandatory [product]. The authors make the grave mistake of using advertisements and propaganda from drug companies as the “truth” and “evidence standard” from which “rational decisions” are to be made—the “proper conclusion” would be complete and enthusiastic agreement with drug company advertisements—even when such “evidence” is obviously biased and has already proven to be inaccurate; for example, the AstraZenca [DRUG] has already been withdrawn from the market due to adverse effects, even though the company stated that the withdrawal was for reasons of inefficacy and competition.

The vaccine clearly endorsed in the article as evidence of “safety and effectiveness” is so unsafe and ineffective that it has already been withdrawn from the market globally:

• The vaccine had only been in use for a few months before reports emerged of unusual blood clots. https://news.sky.com/story/astrazeneca-starts-worldwide-withdrawal-of-covid-vaccine-13131585

• "More than two months after pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca and Oxford University scientists released their COVID-19 [DRUG], countries in Europe and elsewhere are pausing its use amid disconcerting reports that a small number of recipients have experienced blood clots, some of them fatal. ... AstraZeneca’s confusing trial results and the study’s temporary suspension led to a crisis of confidence that convinced governments around the world to hit the breaks on its [DRUG] when the blood clotting reports surfaced. ... If the blood clotting concerns were not enough, a new study shows the AstraZeneca [DRUG] was not effective in protecting people from a variant of the COVID-19 virus that originated in South Africa and is slowly gaining ground elsewhere. In the report, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, scientists in South Africa found that two doses of the AstraZeneca [DRUG] were about 10% efficacious in protecting people from getting sick from the new variant, known as B.1.351. There were no severe cases reported among the 2,000-plus study participants, but similar percentages of those who got the [DRUG] and those who received a placebo got sick. That suggests the AstraZeneca [DRUG] may not be as useful in areas where that particular variant is spreading." https://time.com/5947134/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-stopped

• “The AstraZeneca vaccine – which was renamed as Vaxzevria in 2021 – had, like all vaccines, side effects. As well as common side effects such as nausea and joint pain, it was linked to a rare but serious side effect called thrombosis with thrombocytopenia, or TTS. https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-why-is-the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-being-withdrawn-worldwide

• A dad who suffered a brain injury just days after receiving a British-developed COVID vaccine has told Sky News he would never have had the jab if he had known of the risk of rare but serious side effects. Jamie Scott, who has two young boys and is now unable to work, is suing AstraZeneca for what he says is damage caused by the jab in April 2021. He was taken to hospital where he was diagnosed with a clot that was stopping blood draining from his brain, as well as a haemorrhage in the brain itself. He had surgery and was in a coma for just over a month. His wife Kate was told that if he survived he would never be the same again. Mr Scott now has a poor memory, has trouble reading, writing, listening and speaking, is partially blind in both eyes and suffers from pain and fatigue. He says he can't drive or play an active part in his boys' lives. "Everything about me has changed. Everything is difficult," he said. "I am happy to be alive. But I'm a shadow of what I was and every day is difficult." There are 51 cases lodged with the High Court with people claiming damage as a result of vaccination. Some are bereaved relatives. https://news.sky.com/story/a-shadow-of-what-i-was-dad-who-suffered-brain-injury-days-after-getting-covid-vaccine-sues-astrazeneca-13125842

2.This is propaganda-driven "research" to condemn anyone who has a differing perspective: The legitimate form of research would have been to present the risks and benefits of "[product]" vs vitamin D vs ivermectin vs NAC and zinc (etc) in a blinded manner to allow fair evaluation of the data. Instead, the authors/journal cherry-picked pro-[product] data to create the illusion that any dissent is illogical. The authors/journal cherry-picked pro-[product] data and completely ignored any and all alternatives but then called this "all of the evidence" that could be considered. The authors use the term "unDRUGGED" on one occasion but without defining what that term means, let alone clarifying that in many instances patients were considered "unDRUGGed" for the first 2 weeks after receiving the DRUG in order to avoid proper attribution of injuries and deaths to the DRUG. In other situations, people were classified as "unDRUGGed" if they had not received 2-3 boosters, etc

• An important part of the globalist agenda is to convert your "free speech" and nonpropagandized perspective into "hate speech" or "misinformation" or "disinformation" so they will have the excuse to censor, fine, or imprison anyone who disagrees with them.

3.The authors make extensive and superfluous use of computer-generated graphs, charts, and equations in an attempt to make their argument appear convincing and scientific; but the facts remain that their core data is flawed because they 1) provided biased and unbelievable information to the participants, 2) under-represented the risks, and 3) provided no comparator, ie, no other option to which their supposed “analysis” of decision-making could be assessed. Stated more plainly in the common vernacular: The computer-generated illustration and mathematical-statistical demonstration of bullshit is still bullshit, but actually worse than regular bullshit because of the effort put into substantiating the bullshit and the increasingly convincing nature of said bullshit.