- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: OB-GYN says the COVID shots “MIRRORED” the effects of chemical ABORTION drugs
Posted on 5/21/25 at 7:23 pm to Crimson Wraith
Posted on 5/21/25 at 7:23 pm to Crimson Wraith
Who remembers when Damar Hamlin said something along the lines of "they won't let me say" and insinuated that he got a fat payoff to keep his mouth shut? I do.
0
Posted on 5/21/25 at 7:24 pm to FizzyPop
quote:
And which side mandated it? Come on, you can say it
Posted on 5/21/25 at 7:39 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
SouthEasternKaiju
Please tell us with full citations what the feature and plan was regarding the jab.
Not conjecture or random links to unsourced banned.new articles. We need the documents and full citations.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 2:48 am to jclem11
Not sure what you’re going on about. Start with the NEJM study , if you’d like.
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 2:53 am
Posted on 5/22/25 at 3:06 am to TBoy
No dude, it's you that has worms in his brain
Posted on 5/22/25 at 5:31 am to Night Vision
quote:
Shimabukuro study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine
Man, I am so happy I have the intellect to read these studies and draw my own conclusions from the data. As opposed to relying on politicians with an agenda to “tell me” what it said.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 5:38 am to Night Vision
Just remember, half of peer reviewed studies are eventually de-bunked.
When you see one come out, remember that it has a coin flip chance of being right.
When you see one come out, remember that it has a coin flip chance of being right.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 6:07 am to loogaroo
quote:
I fear we are just beginning to see what was the real motive.
Yeah.
It’s pretty close to a worst case scenario if that’s true, but it lines up exactly with what the leaks on 4chan were saying.
The rumor there very early on was that not only did it harm gestation, it caused levels of long term declines in fertility that approached what could be classified as sterilization.
Unfortunately this person also had what looked like slides from the early drug trials that supported this outcome which is why it had never been pushed to humans for other purposes pre-Covid.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 6:21 am to loogaroo
quote:they were pushing on little kids too.
fear we are just beginning to see what was the real motive.
Now suddenly the FDA has new guidance saying they don't approve the clotshot for kids. But yeah mistakes were made
Posted on 5/22/25 at 6:22 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Just remember, half of peer reviewed studies are eventually de-bunked.
Every other research article is de-bunked? That’s your position?
Man, then I am one lucky guy. I’ve got roughly 70 peer reviewed publications (not so subtle brag, I get it), and to my knowledge none of them have been debunked. 0.5^(70) is a very very small number. Need to go buy a lottery ticket ASAP.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 6:27 am to Night Vision
Our OB insisted wife get it at 20 weeks. I literally laughed at her and said no thanks both wife and baby are perfecty healthy.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 6:28 am to onmymedicalgrind
quote:Well done.
70 peer reviewed publications
Posted on 5/22/25 at 6:33 am to NC_Tigah
In fairness, fellows and med students do 90% of the work these days 
Posted on 5/22/25 at 7:08 am to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Every other research article is de-bunked? That’s your position?
Where have you been?
The issues with replicating peer-reviewed studies is pretty well-documented.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 7:13 am to Night Vision
I saw a hematologist a while back about a blood clot and first thing he asked was did you get the questionable COVID vaccines
Posted on 5/22/25 at 8:16 am to the808bass
quote:
Where have you been?
Working and publishing papers.
quote:
The issues with replicating peer-reviewed studies is pretty well-documented.
Replicating =/= debunking.
I would love to review the actual study that has concluded that every other peer reviewed publication has been debunked. But then again, how do we know it won’t be one of the half that is debunked hmmmmmmm
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:14 am to Night Vision
quote:
when you isolate the data for women vaccinated in the first trimester, the real number was 82%.
Premeditated and actual mass murder used to be considered "Crimes Against Humanity".
"Too-Many-to-Indict/Convict?"
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:17 am to TBoy
quote:
Do you have worms in your brain too?
I'd bet my entire net worth that you think Ronald Reagan spread AIDS intentionally.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:24 am to loogaroo
quote:so the question of who was actually in charge of the government becomes exponentially more important
I fear we are just beginning to see what was the real motive.
so, who benefitted from the theft of the 2020 US (and the anti-US activism during the trump slipup 1.0)?
who was in all the positions of control and thus the frickiness of the stolen government?
Increasingly this needs an actual professional investigation - who stole control of the US government?
al the way to treason charges
Posted on 5/22/25 at 11:05 am to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Man, I am so happy I have the intellect to read these studies and draw my own conclusions from the data. As opposed to relying on politicians with an agenda to “tell me” what it said.
The man speaking is a doctor who came to his own conclusions from the data.
Can you use your intellect to explain exactly what is going on in table 4 of the paper. It seems the authors originally showed a spontaneous abortion incidence of 12.6% (104 of 827 completed pregnancies), but then had to make a correction when a letter to the editor called out that 700 of those were vaccinated in the third trimester and therefore should have been excluded. The paper was changed to "not applicable" .
It seems the doctor in the link is calculating spontaneous abortions at 82% (104/127 completed pregnancies excluding those vaccinated after timeframe for spontaneous abortion. This is in line with the authors methodology for other outcomes, right?
Maybe instead of peer review, we should have skeptics review?
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News