I wanted to know more about whether this is a, "mainstream," journal. I think that there is journal influence rating system, but I do not know what this is called.
So on my brief examination this is not a high power journal. This is not a comment about the content, just sharing that someone claims that this is a popup journal.
Cell it ain't. That's all I'm saying. The verbiage, "tainted," is pretty inflammatory. I would watch this more if you care about the topic.
Do you understand that the entire journal and peer review system is fundamentally kiked and that an overwhelming portion of the findings from (((peer reviewed))) articles cannot be replicated? Who gives a shit if it's a journal that will raise the author's circle jerk Z score. If the article is based on facts and actual research then let it stand. And "tainted" is 100% factually correct in reference to vaxxed blood. We should be calling things like they are and not mincing words.
Yes. Don't expect a lot of impact even if this is 100% true is what I suggest. Business as usual, ya know?
I've read a few times that the blood has some real changes. Not sure the quality of the journal but also believe that no MSM journal will publish anything questioning the vaccine.
They will, but the abstract and conclusion will be pro vax even though the finding of the study tells you the shot is rubbish.
(post is archived)