I think it does. If you asked my opinion about some anti-semitic book, and I find the book's author is Adolf Hitler, then clearly the nature of the person does have bearing.
Stephanie Seneff's style is always fear mongering. Much like some people on Longecity.
She's not a biologist, but a computer scientist who moonlights in biology.
But to answer your question, let's get some expert views on the paper: Jacques Robert, emeritus professor for oncology at the University of Bordeaux said of Seneff's paper:
"I think that this manuscript cannot be considered as a scientific paper but as a militant, agitational, tract.
The last author, P.A. McCullough, is already known for his anti-vaccines presupposition and one of his papers has recently be retracted.
The second author, Gregh Nigh, is a member of a so-called "Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians" and is therefore scientifically disqualified."
Source: here.
I posted the study because I was interested in some intelligent discussion about the conclusion made by the authors. Instead, you attack the authors and say nothing about the points they make.
I get the fact that the lead author has a reputation for blaming glyphosate for causing cancer, and suspects that it may cause other things as well. She has been ridiculed for this. Monsanto has always said Glyphosate does not cause cancer, except a jury awarded $289 Million to a man with cancer, caused by Glyphosate (roundup). https://www.theguard...ncer-verdictwas later reduced to $20 Million, and more cases are coming.
It looks like she was on to something there, and may be on to something here.
Pfizer said their vaccine is safe and effective, and asked a court to seal their post authorization and use documents for 75 years. The court ordered the documents released. https://euroweeklyne...r-vaccine-data/
That fact, on it's own is enough to create suspicions.
The first load of documents has shown 1,200 deaths in the first 90 days of use. Fact checkers have said this is untrue and the main stream media has not taken up the story. Unfortunately the information comes from Pfizer and is unambiguous.
But you can decide for yourself. Here is the Table taken from the Cumulative Analysis of Post Authorization Adverse Events, submitted by Pfizer. I will also attach the entire document.
The system won't let me post the table, but you can find it in the attached complete document. It is Table 1 on page 7. Page 6 shows the redactions of the total number of vaccines administered.
Look at "Case Outcome". They redacted the total number of vaccinations, there are about 42,000 adverse events, with 19,500 recovering, 520 recovered with issues, 11,361 not yet recovered, 1,223 dead, and 9,400 Unknown.
The death number is unambiguous. However, how does 19,500 Recovered/Recovering differ from 11,361 Not Recovered at the Time of This Report? Why not just say 31,000 not recovered? The only reason I can think of is to make the numbers of "not recovered" seem less severe. And what's up with 9,400 Unknown?
There is a lot to unpack in that table of information and the explanation paragraphs, including the redaction of the total number doses delivered in 90 days, and the numbers that don't add up.
I can see why Pfizer wanted to hide this information for 75 years.
I can see why the authors of the study that I posted above saw a need to evaluate the data they had available for explanations concerting issues surrounding the vaccine.
It is difficult to understand how so many deaths and other adverse events taking place at or about the same time the vaccine was received, did not result in a reevaluation of the vaccine, and a moratorium to allow for investigation.
For comparison, in 1976 there was a swine flu panic, rush to develop a vaccine and inoculate the US population. The first shot was given October 1, 1976. There were monthly body counts, nothing close to 1,200 in 90 days, however. The vaccination program was halted December 16,1976, to investigate 54 cases of Guillain-Barre. The program never restarted. You can find a great swine flu chronology here: https://www.ncbi.nlm...ooks/NBK219595/
So, 1976. Vaccinations halted because of 54 adverse events, that would result in a total of 450 Guillain-Barre cases stopped the vaccination program. At the same time, 42,000 adverse events in 90 days did nothing in 2021. Who know how many deaths, or adverse events are out there today.
I am not an anti vaxer. I take vaccines that work, and the risk of harm from the vaccine is outweighed by the risk of the disease.
I took both Pfizer vaccines, and I think I suffered an adverse event. I did not report it to VAERS.
So I am looking at any facts that I can find, and any research, that can provide insight into whether the vaccine works, and is less harmful than getting Covid 19.
As things stand, it appears that the vaccine does not prevent illness from Covid 19. It is unclear if the risk is worth it.
Edited by joesixpack, 07 May 2022 - 07:17 PM.
