MelloDawg
New Fish
https://twitter.com/P_McCulloughMD/status/1610257536162332672?s=20&t=UG37urzIX71gOKIAeLfihw
Don't bring medical studies and peer reviewed papers into this. The libs don't deal in facts, only emotions.
Is it peer reviewed? It's listed as "letter to editor".
Letter uses absolute values instead of rates. How many athletes were in sports in 1966-2004 versus 2020-2022?
What was the source of statistics for those years? Are they comparable in how they were taken? How reliable are those statistics? Where is the data for 2005-2019?
What types of sports had the highest rate of cardiac injury? What about race?
Great questions. Were any asked of the CV jab trials?
No need to answer.
The fact that Pfizer asked a federal judge to withhold answers for 75 years[/i][/b] says it all.
In this case, the author Dr Peter McCullough, is the top cardiologist in the country. With over 600 peer-reviewed, published papers on his resume he is head and shoulders above the field. I think it's fair to say he's earned a bit of discretion if those questions aren't perfectly addressed (but likely are given his track record).
I really hope this helps.
Like looking into election fraud, some people don't want to ask and don't want to know. Statistical anomalies can be just that. They can also direct an intellectually curious person into further investigation. When the first party strongly resists that investigation, that is further evidence that there should be an investigation - a real investigation.
Agreed. Good thing there was one of those, though I get that “a real investigation” means “provide me the confirmation bias I need.”
Last edited:
