29-04-2023, 04:43 PM
(29-04-2023, 01:52 PM)king1 Wrote:(29-04-2023, 12:01 PM)SueDonim Wrote: And Wikipedia is reliable? It even had articles warning about its own shortcomings.
Basically you can find something to support anything you want to say. I prefer well known science publications that have reputation and standing in their fields. I do find Media Bias/Fact Check to be a reasonable resource when, like all things, it is used in conjunction with other knowledge/experience and/or has a view that is backed up by other sources. The article you quoted is interesting and has some good food for thought but starts to fall apart when looked at critically.
It looked to me like the article was just presenting an overview of a study conducted by
Quote:A group of German pathologists, led by Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt and Prof. Dr. Walter Lang, have studied tissue samples of about two dozen people who had died after covid vaccination.
is the interpretation of the results presented by the SWPRS you take issue with or the results of the study by the german pathologists?
My suspicion was aroused when a 12 month old article by a "policy" publication is quoting pathologists who don't seem to have had the work published in a peer reviewed medical journal. I didn't look too hard so may have missed it, but the references to their work seem to all be on the fringe.
Personally, I think the quote I pulled from the article is probably about right ("To what extent can a severe or even a mild coronavirus infection cause similar endothelial damage?..."). It's a pity they then went back on that concept.