you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You’re still here? Are you getting paid or just an obsessive?

Your last two comments at least were that you're not going to continue this conversation.

So this question seems a little ironic. I'm not getting paid. Perhaps I'm obsessive.

Why are you still here?

Now stop putting words in my mouth

Why don't you try then.

You claimed in your "insightful" post that:

Oh look a study from Oxford the creators of the "rare" blood clot causing Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 "vaccine"!

The author affiliations of the paper in the post you reply to are:

1) Health Outcomes, Policy, and Evidence Synthesis (HOPES) Group, University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy, Storrs, Connecticut, USA (2 Authors)
2) Universidad Científica del Sur, Lima, Peru Centro de Investigación, Instituto Peruano de Oncología y Radioterapia, San Isidro, Lima, Peru
3) Cello Health, Yardley, Pennsylvania, USA
4) Unidad de Revisiones Sistemáticas y Meta-análisis, Guías de Práctica Clínica y Evaluaciones de Tecnologías Sanitarias (URSIGET), Vicerrectorado de Investigación, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, La Molina, Lima, Peru
and
5) Division of Infectious Diseases, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

You will have noticed by now, that none of those are the Oxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

So, in your own words, were you mistaken or disingenuous when you made that post?
And now, having been asked about it about a dozen times, and not retracting your misinformation, are you being disingenuous or merely too egotistical to be able to face your errors honestly?

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[deleted]

    [–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    So Oxford cherry picked some studies

    For fuck's sake! When you say "a study from Oxford", you mean that the paper was published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, which is published by Oxford University Press, and that's a department of Oxford University, and the Oxford Vaccine Group is within the Department of Paediatrics also at the Oxford University.

    So your claim is that the OVG put pressure on the Department of Paediatrics to put pressure on the University to pressure the Oxford university press to manipulate their peer review process so that a meta-analysis demonstrating that Ivermectin is ineffective is published despite having flaws. That you don't name.

    Why don't you say that instead of these fucking oblique hints? You think people have time to sift through your bullshit to try to work out what you might mean like a fucking crossword?

    It's a long bow to draw, and the failure to find effectiveness in treatment of covid with ivermectin is pretty universal. If you think the study is flawed, point out the flaw that the peer reviewers were pressured to overlook. That's less batshit crazy than your "Oxford University" link.

    to protect the narrative that the poison “vaccine”

    WRONG. the vaccine is not poison.

    making the institution billions

    WRONG astrazeneca is not making any money. They have pledged not to make a profit off the vaccine during the pandemic. That's why Oxford Astrazeneca is $4 per shot and something like Moderna is in the $25-$35 dollar range.

    is a safe or even reasonable option

    WRONG. The paper does not look at the safety of the AZ vaccine.

    while the safe

    WRONG. people are dying of ivermectin overdoses.

    and effective treatment options are downplayed mightily

    WRONG. Ivermectin has not be found effective by anyone. hydroxychloroquine has now been found unsafe and ineffective. As was remdesivir before that. And ritonavir makes for worse outcomes too.

    There's a long list of ineffective treatments that you anti-vaxers have been killing people with. Ivermectin is just the latest. You'll find others next.

    Now why don’t you post a link of studies collected by Pfizer or Moderna because people will find it just as trustworthy.

    Let's be clear:

    1) You said that the study was from Oxford University. You lied. You moving the goalposts to "published by" is dishonest.

    So the question still stands. Were you mistaken or dishonest?

    2) Clinical Infectious Diseases has a history going back 42 years, and according to Journal Citation Reports, is the 9th most prestigious of 148 immunology journals that they rank. Pfizer nor BoiNTec nor Moderna nor the NIAID don't have an academic publishing group with prestige and history.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      You sound pathetically manic.

      I take it you've got no response to the facts then?

      You falsely claim that the study was from oxford vaccine group, then you move the goalposts to say that there's a tenuous link with the oxford vaccine group and the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases instead.

      Both are dishonest.

      To dream up a motivation for the tenuous link, you lie about Oxford making money from the AstraZeneca vaccine.

      In amongst a string of misinformation about some "safe and effective treatment options". Presumably the horse paste in the OP that is killing conserveniuses at a slower but more avoidable rate than COVID.

      The thing about arguments that you have to lie to support? They don't stand on their own.