Reutlingen Pathological Conference re: COVID vaccines

[W_HAT]

The links below are Part 1 & 2 of the Reutlingen Pathological Conference from September:

https://odysee.com/@FwapUK:1/Part-1:f10

https://odysee.com/@FwapUK:1/Part-2:006a

Curious about others' thoughts on the analysis?

If you don't have time to watch the whole thing, the beginning of part 2 is noteworthy.

Thanks in advance for your comments.

[alanjh595]

Odysee is no better than Bitchute for content reliability.

[captkirkcanada]

The links below are Part 1 & 2 of the Reutlingen Pathological Conference from September:

https://odysee.com/@FwapUK:1/Part-1:f10

https://odysee.com/@FwapUK:1/Part-2:006a

Curious about others' thoughts on the analysis?

If you don't have time to watch the whole thing, the beginning of part 2 is noteworthy.

Thanks in advance for your comments.

This my answer

Before we talk about the abysmal standards of evidence, let's start with the obvious facts about the linked video:

There is no "Pathological Institute" in Reutlingen. There's a hospital in Reutlingen that has a pathology lab. That's not the same thing. Not in name and not in function. But never mind that because the video wasn't filmed there either.

None of three professors in the video works at that pathology lab anyway. Or any pathology lab for that matter. Because all three of them are retired. Two of them used to be pathologists at least. So there's that. The third is a former professor for electrical engineering.

None of the three professors speak for anyone but themselves. The German Society for Pathology (DGP) released a statement that strongly condemned the video:

These are personal expressions of opinion and not the position of our specialist society.

As has already been critically noted by others, the data presented is not scientifically sound.

The DGP is not yet aware of any noticeable correlation of deaths in connection with the COVID-19 vaccination - although it cannot of course be ruled out that the vaccination can also cause complications.

The Paul Ehrlich Institute is responsible for recording and evaluating such undesirable side effects.

The person who does almost all of the talking in the three-hour video is Arne Burkhardt. He is a familiar face in the small but obnoxious German antivaxx scene. He gained a certain level of notoriety earlier this year after publishing a paper that called masks "the devil in disguise".

Arne Burkhardt claims to have published over 150 scientific papers. He is presumably well-acquainted with the scientific method. So why didn't he publish a paper about his supposed COVID-19 findings? Why did he hold a press conference on YouTube instead? Does he expect his colleagues to peer review a video? It certainly seems as if he's trying to bypass the peer review process entirely. So it probably comes as no surprise that his colleagues describe his conclusions as "incomprehensible".


Any other videos you need debunked i am more than happy to help

[Muzza]

No thanks:

"The Odyssey Online did not claim itself to be “reliable news,” but I would like to remind people stumbling across this website that it is not a reliable source by any means."

[Even Steven]

No thanks:

"The Odyssey Online did not claim itself to be “reliable news,” but I would like to remind people stumbling across this website that it is not a reliable source by any means."

Odyssey is just a video hosting company. Just like Youtube.

[WESTman]

Odyssey is just a video hosting company. Just like Youtube.

Exactly same with Bitchute, they are just platforms that don't censor.

[alanjh595]

This my answer

Before we talk about the abysmal standards of evidence, let's start with the obvious facts about the linked video:

There is no "Pathological Institute" in Reutlingen. There's a hospital in Reutlingen that has a pathology lab. That's not the same thing. Not in name and not in function. But never mind that because the video wasn't filmed there either.

None of three professors in the video works at that pathology lab anyway. Or any pathology lab for that matter. Because all three of them are retired. Two of them used to be pathologists at least. So there's that. The third is a former professor for electrical engineering.

None of the three professors speak for anyone but themselves. The German Society for Pathology (DGP) released a statement that strongly condemned the video:

These are personal expressions of opinion and not the position of our specialist society.

As has already been critically noted by others, the data presented is not scientifically sound.

The DGP is not yet aware of any noticeable correlation of deaths in connection with the COVID-19 vaccination - although it cannot of course be ruled out that the vaccination can also cause complications.

The Paul Ehrlich Institute is responsible for recording and evaluating such undesirable side effects.

The person who does almost all of the talking in the three-hour video is Arne Burkhardt. He is a familiar face in the small but obnoxious German antivaxx scene. He gained a certain level of notoriety earlier this year after publishing a paper that called masks "the devil in disguise".

Arne Burkhardt claims to have published over 150 scientific papers. He is presumably well-acquainted with the scientific method. So why didn't he publish a paper about his supposed COVID-19 findings? Why did he hold a press conference on YouTube instead? Does he expect his colleagues to peer review a video? It certainly seems as if he's trying to bypass the peer review process entirely. So it probably comes as no surprise that his colleagues describe his conclusions as "incomprehensible".


Any other videos you need debunked i am more than happy to help

Excellent research and statement.

[alanjh595]

No thanks:

"The Odyssey Online did not claim itself to be “reliable news,” but I would like to remind people stumbling across this website that it is not a reliable source by any means."

Odyssey is just a video hosting company. Just like Youtube.

It hosts videos that youtube /facebook/google won't.

Just like Bitchute and Russia Today.

[W_HAT]

The links below are Part 1 & 2 of the Reutlingen Pathological Conference from September:

https://odysee.com/@FwapUK:1/Part-1:f10

https://odysee.com/@FwapUK:1/Part-2:006a

Curious about others' thoughts on the analysis?

If you don't have time to watch the whole thing, the beginning of part 2 is noteworthy.

Thanks in advance for your comments.

This my answer

Before we talk about the abysmal standards of evidence, let's start with the obvious facts about the linked video:

There is no "Pathological Institute" in Reutlingen. There's a hospital in Reutlingen that has a pathology lab. That's not the same thing. Not in name and not in function. But never mind that because the video wasn't filmed there either.

None of three professors in the video works at that pathology lab anyway. Or any pathology lab for that matter. Because all three of them are retired. Two of them used to be pathologists at least. So there's that. The third is a former professor for electrical engineering.

None of the three professors speak for anyone but themselves. The German Society for Pathology (DGP) released a statement that strongly condemned the video:

These are personal expressions of opinion and not the position of our specialist society.

As has already been critically noted by others, the data presented is not scientifically sound.

The DGP is not yet aware of any noticeable correlation of deaths in connection with the COVID-19 vaccination - although it cannot of course be ruled out that the vaccination can also cause complications.

The Paul Ehrlich Institute is responsible for recording and evaluating such undesirable side effects.

The person who does almost all of the talking in the three-hour video is Arne Burkhardt. He is a familiar face in the small but obnoxious German antivaxx scene. He gained a certain level of notoriety earlier this year after publishing a paper that called masks "the devil in disguise".

Arne Burkhardt claims to have published over 150 scientific papers. He is presumably well-acquainted with the scientific method. So why didn't he publish a paper about his supposed COVID-19 findings? Why did he hold a press conference on YouTube instead? Does he expect his colleagues to peer review a video? It certainly seems as if he's trying to bypass the peer review process entirely. So it probably comes as no surprise that his colleagues describe his conclusions as "incomprehensible".


Any other videos you need debunked i am more than happy to help

I appreciate your comments but when I researched all of your remarks, I did not find one credible source to disprove the credibility of the information or the participants in the video.