Jeremy R. Hammond

@jeremyrhammond

I expose state propaganda serving to manufacture consent for harmful government policies. Subscribe to my newsletter at

Michigan, USA
jeremyrhammond.com
Liittynyt heinäkuu 2010
1 464 kuvaa tai videota Kuvat ja videot

Twiitit

Olet estänyt käyttäjän @jeremyrhammond

Haluatko varmasti nähdä nämä twiitit? Twiittien näyttäminen ei poista käyttäjän @jeremyrhammond estoa.

  1. Kiinnitetty twiitti
    29. elok.

    Exhibit A: What Science magazine insists is an "accurate" statement describing the findings of a study, leading readers to conclude the study found a significant benefit of vaccinating naturally immune people. Exhibit B: What the study actually found: no such benefit.

    6 vastausta 22 uudelleentwiittausta 57 tykkäystä
    Kumoa
  2. 11 tuntia sitten

    Data from the UK now show that the case fatality rate for Delta variant is higher for fully vaccinated people (0.96%) than for unvaccinated people (0.24%). 60.7% of deaths are in the fully vaccinated. (See Table 5.)

    18 vastausta 200 uudelleentwiittausta 356 tykkäystä
    Kumoa
  3. uudelleentwiittasi
    3. syysk.

    Looks like put a lot of time into this, hopefully it gets shared around. This is just the intro. The Superiority of Natural Immunity to SARS-CoV-2: Introduction

    1 vastaus 16 uudelleentwiittausta 30 tykkäystä
    Kumoa
  4. 20 tuntia sitten

    You can see Science acknowledging that their (and your) claim was (is) false in this thread: Please do the responsible thing and acknowledge your error and correct the article with an honest clarification. 2/2

    Vastauksena käyttäjille @meredithwadman ja @JeremyHammond
    You read the paper, so you're aware that when the analysis was narrowed to that 81%, the result was statistically insignificant! You are misleading your readers into believing that the study showed a benefit of vaccinating people with natural immunity when it did not.
    1 vastaus 3 tykkäystä
    Näytä tämä ketju
    Näytä tämä ketju
    Kumoa
  5. 20 tuntia sitten

    To follow up, and , Science magazine has acknowledged that the way they initially characterized the study's finding, which is the same way you have characterized it, was incorrect. I hope you will correct your article more honestly than Science did. 1/2

    2 vastausta 5 tykkäystä
    Näytä tämä ketju
    Näytä tämä ketju
    Kumoa
  6. 2. syysk.

    The public health establishment has been claiming that people who’ve recovered from infection still need to get a vaccine because is inferior, but that is a lie.

    14 uudelleentwiittausta 51 tykkäystä
    Kumoa
  7. 2. syysk.

    Hi and , In this article, you claim a recent study found a significant benefit of vaccination for people with pre-existing natural immunity. That is false. Please correct!

    Exhibit A: How the media report the findings of a recent study by Israeli researchers: claiming a significant benefit of vaccination was found for people with natural immunity. Exhibit B: What the study actually found: no such benefit.
    2 vastausta 5 uudelleentwiittausta 27 tykkäystä
    Näytä tämä ketju
    Näytä tämä ketju
    Kumoa
  8. 2. syysk.

    Exhibit A: How the media report the findings of a recent study by Israeli researchers: claiming a significant benefit of vaccination was found for people with natural immunity. Exhibit B: What the study actually found: no such benefit.

    2 vastausta 8 uudelleentwiittausta 30 tykkäystä
    Kumoa
  9. 2. syysk.

    Of course, coerced vaccination of ANYONE is a violation of fundamental human rights. The fact people who are already immune are being coerced, too, just illustrates that it isn't about public health.

    Unless our federal judiciary understands that coerced vaccination of Americans who are already naturally immune from a prior infection is unnecessary and potentially harmful and, thus, an ACT OF EXECUTIVE OVERREACH, all three branched of our government will have failed millions.
    3 vastausta 28 uudelleentwiittausta 102 tykkäystä
    Kumoa
  10. uudelleentwiittasi
    1. syysk.

    Odd that mask advocates are excited by this study. As a vaccine advocate, I would be horrified if a vaccine trial showed 11% efficacy. Based on the 95% confidence intervals, we do not even know if surgical mask efficacy is more than 0%.

    In a Bangladesh community randomized trial, cloth masks decreased confirmed symptomatic COVID disease by 5% (95%CI: 21% decrease to 11% increase) while surgical masks decreased it by 11% (95%CI: 0%-22%).
    178 vastausta 1 273 uudelleentwiittausta 4 038 tykkäystä
    Kumoa
  11. uudelleentwiittasi
    1. syysk.
    Vastauksena käyttäjälle

    Jeremy is brilliant and spends a LOT of time analyzing the science, the propaganda, the facts.. Please consider donating to support work like his!

    1 vastaus 4 uudelleentwiittausta 9 tykkäystä
    Kumoa
  12. uudelleentwiittasi
    31. elok.

    You should read this thread between Hammond and Science Magazine reporter Wadman. It's enlightening in all the worst ways.

    Hi , In this Science piece, you write that the study found that people who experienced infection and THEN were vaccinated were better protected against reinfection than naturally immune people who remained unvaccinated.
    Näytä tämä ketju
    1 vastaus 7 uudelleentwiittausta 12 tykkäystä
    Kumoa
  13. uudelleentwiittasi
    31. elok.

    So did ! Not any more!... And who also fact checks the so-called "Fact Checkers"? does! Please keep up your great work, Jeremy: you know WE trust you, not those "Gekaufte Journalisten" ( Udo Ulfkotte ) the MSM are awash with!👋

    Interesting. “Science Mag” used to be a highly respected journal. Now, when caught in a lie, “Science” reporter uses personal insults against the man who called her out. “Science Mag” now has an agenda. Sad. Truth has taken a back seat to politics in science.
    1 vastaus 2 uudelleentwiittausta 8 tykkäystä
    Kumoa
  14. uudelleentwiittasi
    29. elok.

    This is how the narrative is maintained. Report the data as you wish and when called out on it, just ignore and silence the

    Dear , Please correct this untrue claim by that the study showed a protective benefit for people who acquired natural immunity and after also got vaccinated. The authors explicitly state that they found no such statistically significant benefit.
    2 uudelleentwiittausta 6 tykkäystä
    Kumoa
  15. uudelleentwiittasi
    30. elok.

    How does a fabricated piece of info end up getting included in a scientific article? And how does a reader "catch" something all of the medical writers and reviewers "missed"?

    Vastauksena käyttäjälle @meredithwadman
    No, you did not correct it. You just deleted "then" so that instead of your statement being outright false, it is now just highly misleading. You need to tell the truth: people who had infection THEN got vaccinated were NOT shown to have received a benefit from the shot.
    27 vastausta 283 uudelleentwiittausta 625 tykkäystä
    Kumoa
  16. uudelleentwiittasi
    30. elok.
    Vastauksena käyttäjille , ja

    Except the data present doesn’t support the assertion. Here’s another study that supports the position vax after infection is not justified.

    1 vastaus 2 uudelleentwiittausta 7 tykkäystä
    Kumoa
  17. uudelleentwiittasi
    30. elok.

    Thank you ! 👏

    Vastauksena käyttäjälle @meredithwadman
    No, you did not correct it. You just deleted "then" so that instead of your statement being outright false, it is now just highly misleading. You need to tell the truth: people who had infection THEN got vaccinated were NOT shown to have received a benefit from the shot.
    1 vastaus 2 uudelleentwiittausta 5 tykkäystä
    Kumoa
  18. uudelleentwiittasi
    30. elok.

    keeping honest

    3 vastausta 11 uudelleentwiittausta 32 tykkäystä
    Kumoa
  19. uudelleentwiittasi
    30. elok.

    Fully erroneous, politicized framing of experimental data by Science Magazine, in full public view. But TheScience™

    Exhibit A: What Science magazine insists is an "accurate" statement describing the findings of a study, leading readers to conclude the study found a significant benefit of vaccinating naturally immune people. Exhibit B: What the study actually found: no such benefit.
    6 uudelleentwiittausta 12 tykkäystä
    Kumoa
  20. uudelleentwiittasi
    30. elok.

    Interesting. “Science Mag” used to be a highly respected journal. Now, when caught in a lie, “Science” reporter uses personal insults against the man who called her out. “Science Mag” now has an agenda. Sad. Truth has taken a back seat to politics in science.

    Vastauksena käyttäjille @meredithwadman ja @JeremyHammond
    You read the paper, so you're aware that when the analysis was narrowed to that 81%, the result was statistically insignificant! You are misleading your readers into believing that the study showed a benefit of vaccinating people with natural immunity when it did not.
    2 vastausta 2 uudelleentwiittausta 12 tykkäystä
    Kumoa
  21. 31. elok.

    To stay updated with my independent journalism, sign up for my newsletter here: Lots of great exclusive-to-subscribers content in my emails.

    Vastauksena käyttäjälle @jeremyrhammond
    Jeremy, bro, I just discovered you recently, and as an amateur budding investigative journalist, I extremely appreciate you and love your work! I was so happy in reviewing one of your articles, that you were able to address the nuances that most on the skeptical side miss...
    1 uudelleentwiittaus 3 tykkäystä
    Kumoa

@jeremyrhammond ei ole vielä twiitannut.

Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.

Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.

    Saatat pitää myös

    ·