I agree with your analysis of the Federalist obvious shortcoming in not covering jab injuries. If the accounts WE read on substack are erroneous, the Mollie/Mark team could at least attempt to debunk or unravel them. Omission is weak. The Federalist has conservative journalistic cache which should be leveraged to expose the crap!
I can send this to my friends Nathaniel and Joy Pullman if you like. Joy is the executive editor for the Federalist, and she might be able to do something about it.
Pullman's work has been stellar over the years. Honestly, the entire site has been vital. To see Shawn Fleetwood's output and skim some of it, for example, is to just be humbled and amazed. The quality is so high, given the short format they stick to.
Still, on this key issue, the Federalist's attention is just so little, and so trimmed-down, that I judge it to be more in the realm of suppression than in that of integrity. They cannot claim that their regular readers know what a huge story this is.
I wish I had the time and know-how to contact every one of their editors, so if you just want to send a quick "FYI" to her, go ahead!
I reviewed the slides with a pathology colleague, as they are readily available online -- of note, the autopsies under question were NOT performed by Dr Burkhardt, he was merely reviewing a paper -- as well as reviewing the CDC response. "The German Pathology Conferences did not adhere to standard medical practice format. They were informal, NOT peer reviewed, and were delivered in a DISORGANIZED stream of findings and hypotheses WITHOUT scientific rigor. The primary target audience appeared to be the general public and NOT the scientific community. Claims were made that the conference was taking place in the “Institute of Pathology,” the existence of which could NOT be confirmed. The conference room looked like a Hollywood vision of a pathology laboratory. While the theatrical details were perhaps introduced to increase credibility with the general audience, such pretentiousness is bound to arouse SUSPICION in the academic community.
In summary, the German Pathology Conference demonstrated that people who died after COVID vaccine had demonstrable histopathological changes. The correlation does NOT imply causation (sound familiar??). But showing the presence of the correlation is an important first step, which no one dared to perform before (kudos, but again, zero evidence to support thesis). As discussed above, there are no major problems with Dr. Burkhardt’s interpretation of classic pathology slides. He discussed well-described conditions, and his claims can be easily verified using the visual/textual comparison method with studies in the published literature that use the same standard procedures as he used. This cannot be said about unorthodox content. As discussed above, medical pathologists do NOT generally perform forensic analysis of unknown materials due to LACK of expertise. The same principle applies to the opinion of the nanoelectronics engineer. Engineers may know how to build the nano-elements and therefore how they look, but that does NOT make them expert in forensic analysis. Mere visual interpretation of unknown structures, even by the expert engineer, is prone to pareidolia. (Pareidolia is a common psychological phenomenon characterized by the subconscious misidentification of prevously unseen and unrelated objects as familiar ones.) It is clear that the participants of the conference went BEYOND the area of their direct expertise and that this group had very limited access to standard forensic analytical methods. This leads to several problematic issues.
Namely, Dr. Burkhardt showed several slides that, he claimed, proved that unusual foreign bodies were present in vaccines. Those slides displayed a variety of box-, thread-, and crystal- shaped elements. As shown in Figure 5, the alleged crystal- shaped foreign bodies are likely cholesterol clefts, also known as athero emboli, a relatively common finding with no significance other than that they may be mistaken for foreign bodies. Another example is atheroembolic renal disease."
Good Lord, you finally give us a link, and it's one from late 2022!!!
Take a look at the Tom Haviland survey, this year from around February, which puts 1997 embalmers in the ranks of those who claim they're seeing these clots. https://rumble.com/embed/v46g17x/
I agree with your analysis of the Federalist obvious shortcoming in not covering jab injuries. If the accounts WE read on substack are erroneous, the Mollie/Mark team could at least attempt to debunk or unravel them. Omission is weak. The Federalist has conservative journalistic cache which should be leveraged to expose the crap!
😉
I can send this to my friends Nathaniel and Joy Pullman if you like. Joy is the executive editor for the Federalist, and she might be able to do something about it.
https://thefederalist.com/author/joy-pullmann/
Pullman's work has been stellar over the years. Honestly, the entire site has been vital. To see Shawn Fleetwood's output and skim some of it, for example, is to just be humbled and amazed. The quality is so high, given the short format they stick to.
Still, on this key issue, the Federalist's attention is just so little, and so trimmed-down, that I judge it to be more in the realm of suppression than in that of integrity. They cannot claim that their regular readers know what a huge story this is.
I wish I had the time and know-how to contact every one of their editors, so if you just want to send a quick "FYI" to her, go ahead!
I reviewed the slides with a pathology colleague, as they are readily available online -- of note, the autopsies under question were NOT performed by Dr Burkhardt, he was merely reviewing a paper -- as well as reviewing the CDC response. "The German Pathology Conferences did not adhere to standard medical practice format. They were informal, NOT peer reviewed, and were delivered in a DISORGANIZED stream of findings and hypotheses WITHOUT scientific rigor. The primary target audience appeared to be the general public and NOT the scientific community. Claims were made that the conference was taking place in the “Institute of Pathology,” the existence of which could NOT be confirmed. The conference room looked like a Hollywood vision of a pathology laboratory. While the theatrical details were perhaps introduced to increase credibility with the general audience, such pretentiousness is bound to arouse SUSPICION in the academic community.
In summary, the German Pathology Conference demonstrated that people who died after COVID vaccine had demonstrable histopathological changes. The correlation does NOT imply causation (sound familiar??). But showing the presence of the correlation is an important first step, which no one dared to perform before (kudos, but again, zero evidence to support thesis). As discussed above, there are no major problems with Dr. Burkhardt’s interpretation of classic pathology slides. He discussed well-described conditions, and his claims can be easily verified using the visual/textual comparison method with studies in the published literature that use the same standard procedures as he used. This cannot be said about unorthodox content. As discussed above, medical pathologists do NOT generally perform forensic analysis of unknown materials due to LACK of expertise. The same principle applies to the opinion of the nanoelectronics engineer. Engineers may know how to build the nano-elements and therefore how they look, but that does NOT make them expert in forensic analysis. Mere visual interpretation of unknown structures, even by the expert engineer, is prone to pareidolia. (Pareidolia is a common psychological phenomenon characterized by the subconscious misidentification of prevously unseen and unrelated objects as familiar ones.) It is clear that the participants of the conference went BEYOND the area of their direct expertise and that this group had very limited access to standard forensic analytical methods. This leads to several problematic issues.
Namely, Dr. Burkhardt showed several slides that, he claimed, proved that unusual foreign bodies were present in vaccines. Those slides displayed a variety of box-, thread-, and crystal- shaped elements. As shown in Figure 5, the alleged crystal- shaped foreign bodies are likely cholesterol clefts, also known as athero emboli, a relatively common finding with no significance other than that they may be mistaken for foreign bodies. Another example is atheroembolic renal disease."
The embalmers conference, too, has been thoroughly debunked, by none less than the National Embalmers Association: please read the facts -- https://ravenplume.com/covid-19-and-blood-clots-true-or-clickbait/
Good Lord, you finally give us a link, and it's one from late 2022!!!
Take a look at the Tom Haviland survey, this year from around February, which puts 1997 embalmers in the ranks of those who claim they're seeing these clots. https://rumble.com/embed/v46g17x/
And here's a bonus for you, on turbo cancer: https://rumble.com/v5a7xmt-turbo-cancer-the-unspoken-crisis-post-covid-vaccination-with-dr.-william-ma.html
Oops, 197 embalmers.