There are many? You can use Google Scholar to check, and scihub to read behind the paywall.
Discussion
Can you paste us one link here?
I've pasted two links in this thread which contain abstracts and summaries, are you not able to open them? There are also studies which validate your opinions, but it's obvious you haven't looked if you're declaring there are no studies supporting vaccines. Google Scholar is a great source for searching through peer reviewed papers, and if it's paywalled but prior to 2021 you should be able to find a PDF on scihub.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0264410X94902410
I'm not a fan of vaccines but to say there's no research supporting them is incorrect
It is correct to say that there is literally no research supporting vaccines. I’ve been going at this for years now.
That is not correct. I, personally, don't agree with a lot of the research on vaccines and I, personally, wouldn't take the COVID vaccine again myself. But just because I don't agree with something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There's is plenty of supporting research for vaccines just like there's plenty of supporting research against vaccines. I don't think you're looking at actual scientific research if you haven't seen that (which I also say to the people passionately declaring there's no research supporting anti-vaxxers).
Still waiting for a link to a study
I am confused, I have provided the link. To get around the paywall go to Sci-Hub and insert the DOI. Where are you having trouble with the link? I can send you the PDF if you can't access Sci-Hub yourself for whatever reason.
But also, it's seeming like you just don't want to look at it. Which is also ok! It's just weird to declare it doesn't exist.
This is the Sci-Hub link I used but it's better to generate your own with the DOI
https://sci-hub.ru/https://doi.org/10.1016/0264-410X(94)90241-0
Not sure if something is wrong with my phone but this link only shows me the first page. I can’t see anything else and there’s a cat on the side.
Yes you'd have to get the full PDF which is available on that site. The cat and raven are images that the Sci-Hub site have in the margins while you look at the PDF in browser. I'm not sure why you can't scroll in your browser. But again this is seeming like you just don't want to look 😂
Idk why you keep saying i don’t want to look when im offering sats for it
I do want to look at it that’s why I asked for it. But my original note asks you to give the link to me. Not to tell me to look through Google scholar myself. I’ve looked plenty of times and couldn’t find anything. Here is my original note. And by the way, science isn’t just reading the title or abstract of a study. A lot of times the methods are trash and/or very limited due to funding issues or other things. But most people don’t actually read research they just repeat headlines. And big pharma banks on people’s laziness and ignorance.
nostr:note1t6awchvszenh7tdps8g5cn5rsr38m0fl44tzumjr0ghmytgzr8lqf84n64
Look, you have an axe to grind and that's fine. But it would be better served by showcasing research that supports your argument instead of declaring there's no research against your argument. All you've proven is you can't actually access research the way most researchers do 🤷♀️
Pretty retarded conclusion. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Pharma and brainwashed doctors claim that vaccines prevent disease. They should prove that themselves.
It looks like the placebo participants had a similar outcome in the influenza one:
“Patients potentially at risk showed a response similar to the other participants.”
So this also looks suspect.
But still. Thanks for trying.
🙄
Did you read the abstract?
'I FEEL that vaccines do nothing positive for anyone, so that means I don't trust them and will cherry-pick my debate argument statements and refute any evidence which goes against my FEELINGS on the topic.
Further, facts, along with logic and reason, will be thrown out /my/ fuckin' window. You can keep yours, I don't need these, at all, because I'm right and you're wrong!
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEER YOU'RE WRONG AND IM SO RIGHT!
That's you, btw. Just wanted you to know.
If you wanted to disprove their therapeutic use, then why not research vaccines to be sure so we will all be safe? If you're not actively working in this field, then why can't you kindly keep your cunt opinion to yourself?
You sound vaccinated.
You sound retarded, retard. George Washington vaxxed his troops. I'm guess you don't even wash your hands after jerking off.
Maybe you should go pray to Jesus about it. That'll solve your problems about vaccines, for sure.
Burying your head in the sand doesn't make the problems go away, just so that's clear. I'd rather we understand infections and other maladies so that humans can continue living and breathing, not unwillingly dying to otherwise PREVENTABLE, unnatural causes.
I don't think you truly give a shit about the sanctity of life with this stance you're taking, so maybe it's time to hang up your cross.
He’s definitely double jabbed and boosted. Don’t waste your time on that clown I had him muted a long time ago.
Do research is not just reading the abstract or title of a study and parroting what the media says. When you look at the methods of these papers, and you’re not a retard, you’ll find that it’s all garbage.
Thanks for the zaps 🥰
Both groups were injected with vaccines:
“Infants were vaccinated with either diphtheria and tetanus toxoids alone (DT toxoids, 1726 infants) or diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis toxoids (DTP toxoids, 1724 infants) at 3, 5, and 12 months of age.”
So this is not a controlled experiment in the sense that it provides any value in comparing health outcomes for people who were jabbed against those who are not. Total rubbish. Maybe you should read a little more than just the title.
Just don't say you're gonna send fat zaps for anything against your opinion 🤷♀️ that study was specifically about pertussis and was a controlled randomized blind study which is what you requested. Again, studies that support your opinions also exist. But studies supporting the other side are not non-existent as you two are claiming.
There was no placebo. Both sides were vaccinated. That doesn’t count.
The placebo was present in the second study I listed, which I'm sharing again here. But again, I've done just a lazy search of the top ten articles when I literally just googled what you're requesting. If you don't want to believe studies thats fine, but to claim they don't exist is inaccurate.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0264410X94902410
These studies don’t compare outcomes between vaccinated and non-vaccinated. If you don’t see that, I can’t help you. But also, yes, I’m highly suspicious of so called scientific studies. It is a known fact that pharmaceutical companies pay “scientists” to create “studies” to support selling their products. Something like 70% of studies are not even reproducible:
“More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own.”
That is correct. It's easy to find studies that say anything at all.
Yeah none of these studies actually have a placebo group they compare outcomes to. For good reason, it would prove vaccines are nonsense. That’s why they take away licenses of doctors who try to compare vaccinated to unvaccinated people. Hint: unvaccinated people are healthier.
There are plenty of research studies which support both sides which are easy to read behind the paywall via scihub.
I’m only asking for the side that supports vaccines
Protective antibodies were found and elicited reasonable to good immune response in elderly patients compared to those given the placebo (this is flu vaccine tested).
https://sci-hub.ru/https://doi.org/10.1016/0264-410X(94)90241-0
Link doesn’t show the full study
Weird. I have no reason to lie to you. Sats come and go.
https://video.nostr.build/840ba4f6706c34f6a784a65b90f420bc1e43e29c2beb50ba2117cd205130b6eb.mp4
So I think this is related to the site's security. Sci-Hub has a lot of different links, typically some will be up and some down. It's best to copy the article's DOI into Sci-Hub and it should have full functionality. That's why I was saying linking the Sci-Hub I'm using isn't ideal. But if you really want to access peer reviewed science that's how you do it for free. I can't do it for you though.
Your link worked on desktop and I finished reading it. I’m almost done with my response 😂
There is so much wrong with the conclusions you are making based off this study.
"The data in the literature on immune response following vaccination are contradictory. A variation of (0-80% in the protection rate obtained through vaccination has been reported."
This is from the discussion section talking about the general research in the field on vaccines. I give credit to these researchers for being honest about how bad the research is on vaccines. FUCKING insane variation. 0 to 80%?? That means most of this research is unreliable. And this is on immune response which is seemingly the presence of antibodies in the blood. It's not the absence of illness. And no, presence of antibodies doesn't mean immunity or good health.
"In a recent review article of publications between 1968 and 1988, 17 studies were selected which reasonably met the criteria of a good trial. In these 17 publications, the vaccine components could be studied in relation to the immune response in 30 cases. In ten of these cases, a more favourable response was found in younger rather than older people, while the opposite was found in four cases and no difference could be found between the groups in 16 cases. Such divergence in findings was explained by the methodological shortcomings present in these studies."
Another example of bad methodology in vaccine research that they called out. This is why I said you can't just look at the abstract. You need to look at the way they're doing the experiment. At least these guys are seemingly thorough in their analysis of other research.
Speaking of which, let's see how these guys did the research:
"The antibody titres of the sera were measured by means of the haemagglutinin inhibition test (HI). Influenza virus strains for titrations were propagated in embryonated 12-day-old chicken eggs. Strains of or strains analogous to the vaccine were used for the titrations. Because of the low avidity of influenza B viruses, the eggs which had been infected with this strain were treated with ether."
I'm not going to pretend I understand why they are putting the samples in rotten eggs, but why don't they just measure the fucking health of the participants over a reasonable period of time? Who gets sick and who doesn't. Seems like a pretty easy thing to track.
The other issue with this research is that it presumes that the presence of increased antibodies is a good thing. That if you have antibodies, then you are protected. But that clearly isn't true with covid. They found increased numbers of antibodies after covid vaccination! That doesn't mean that you have increased protection from covid. Another correlational finding from an unnecessarily complicated study. Just do a fucking comparative study of vaccinated and unvaccinated people lmao. Here are the words of the researchers:
"Further research is needed to determine whether a good immune response decreases the incidence of influenza."
So this study doesn't prove that vaccines actually improve health. All it did was prove that if you inject a virus into someone, that the body will increase its antibodies. That's not immunity and that's not a measure of health. But what other things happen to your body when you inject vaccines into it? A direct injection of a virus into the bloodstream is not how people get sick. They get sick, supposedly, from viruses entering the body their mouth or nose. What if injecting these serums into the blood is just bad for you? What mechanisms does your body have to defend against something in the bloodstream like that? How does your body filter out the adjuvants in your blood? Why have they found aluminum in brain autopsies of autistic people? The only way it could get to the brain is through the bloodstream.
But I appreciate you sending me this study because it was surprisingly thorough. I learned more than I expected to. Thank you! I'll zap because it was still valuable to me overall. Some of those statistics are fucking crazy: 0 - 80% variation is fucking wild hahaha
No response?
This is not what we asked for. I asked for a double blind placebo controlled comparative study. This doesn’t have a placebo and it doesn’t have a comparison group. The fact that the article claims it does just shows how corrupt and fraudulent vaccine research is it. It’s quack science and these people should be in prison.