Two excellent articles:
Dr. Peter Doshi questioned the current mainstream narrative on COVID vaccines and the pandemic, backing up his statements with data from the vaccine trials.
Here are the first few paragraphs, along with the video of Doshi’s presentation—very succinct:
WASHINGTON, D.C (LifeSiteNews) – A prominent drug safety expert has questioned the efficacy of the mRNA injections against COVID-19 and suggested they do not qualify as vaccines.
Dr. Peter Doshi, an associate professor of pharmaceutical health services research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and associate editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), discussed the lack of scientific evidence for COVID vaccine efficacy at a panel about vaccine mandates and injuries. The round-table discussion was hosted by Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson in Washington, D.C. on November 2. It included medical experts and people who described their COVID jab injuries.
Doshi gave a 5-minute-long presentation in which he argued that recent data shows no evidence of efficient protection against COVID from the mRNA vaccines.
“The trials did not show a reduction in death even for COVID deaths as opposed to other causes,” he told the panel.
Alex Berenson has a post that I highly recommend:
On Covid vaccines, diabetic ketoacidosis, and the death of Dan Kaminsky
When people die, refusing to ask hard questions about what might have killed them is not heroic. It's the opposite.
Follow the link. You won’t regret it.
Robert Malone leading the way :.
https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD/status/1444667995004055552?s=20
And if I may bring up one more piece of covid work, this an editorial by Dr. James Lyons-Weiler (CEO of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge, editior-in-chief of that organization's Public Health Policy Initiative arm, and who substacks at Popular Rationalism).
The editorial is,
"If Vaccine Adverse Events Tracking Systems Do Not Support Causal Inference, then 'Pharmacovigilance' Does Not Exist,"
and the link is at: tinyurl.com/p25dpvdx
As background, not too long ago a paper ("The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations — Should We Rethink the Policy?") passed peer review and was published in some "mainstream" science rag that promptly retracted it after the usual scientific-method-o-phobic ghouls wailed and moaned over its narrative-defying properties. Lyons-Weiler's Public Health Policy Initiative then itself had the paper peer reviewed, found it worthy and published it. More wailing and moaning of course ensued.
In the above-linked editorial, Lyons-Weiler defends not only his journal's decision to publish but, more importantly, defends scientific honesty and rigor in general. While that part by itself, though welcome, is unremarkable, the quality of the effort is anything but. Anyone wanting to be reminded of how people think and act if they actually take seriously the demanding process of the scientific method, writ large (and without the steadfast application of which the term "science" has no meaning), will not be disappointed after reading the piece. Just 6 pages, an easy and enjoyable lift as long as one's thinking cap is on good and tight for the duration.