Two excellent articles: COVID jab trials did not show reduction in deaths, prominent drug safety expert tells Sen. Ron Johnson Dr. Peter Doshi questioned the current mainstream narrative on COVID vaccines and the pandemic, backing up his statements with data from the vaccine trials
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,"
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.
Coincidentally, I happened upon the Berenson post a couple hours ago and found it probably about as you did: nail #6,882,473 in the debate coffin of the "vax all, treat none" cultists. The standard reaction of "move along, nothing to see here," even though fatal diabetic ketoacidosis is so rare in Kaminisky's general cohort, says a lot, as always.
On a similar front, a really good substack piece by Toby Rogers titled,
Ten red flags in the FDA's risk-benefit analysis of Pfizer's EUA application to inject American children 5 to 11 with its mRNA product - The FDA briefing document is preposterous junk science and it must be withdrawn immediately
I can't do justice to any of the 10 red flags here, since it's the explanations following each that give the piece its value. But I'll list their headings, anyway, just to give a taste of what really is a very well-argued and useful bit of work.
1. COVID-19 rates in children ages 5 to 11 are so low that there were ZERO cases of severe COVID-19 and ZERO cases of death from COVID in either the treatment (n= 1,518) or control group (n= 750).
2. Pfizer’s clinical trial in kids was intentionally undersized to hide harms.
3. Pfizer only enrolled “participants 5-11 years of age without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
4. Did Pfizer LOSE CONTACT with 4.9% of their clinical trial participants?
5. The follow up period was intentionally too short.
This is another well-known trick of the pharmaceutical industry designed to hide harms. Cohort 1 appears to have been followed for 2 months, cohort 2 was only monitored for adverse events for 17 days...
6. The risk-benefit model created by the FDA only looks at one known harm from the Pfizer mRNA shot — myocarditis.
7. Pfizer intentionally wipes out the control group as soon as they can by vaccinating all of the kids who initially got the placebo.
8. Given all of the above, how on earth did the FDA claim any benefits at all from this shot? You should probably sit down for this part because it’s a doozy! Here’s the key sentence:
"Vaccine effectiveness was inferred by immunobridging SARS-CoV-2 50% neutralizing antibody titers (NT50, SARS-CoV-2 mNG microneutralization assay)."
Wait, what!? I’ll explain. There were ZERO cases of severe COVID-19 in the clinical trial of children ages 5 to 11. So Pfizer and the FDA just ignored all of the actual health outcomes (they had to, there is no emergency, so the application is moot). INSTEAD Pfizer switched to looking at antibodies in the blood. In general, antibodies are a poor predictor of immunity...
9. The FDA model only assesses the benefits of vaccine protection in a 6-month period after completion of two doses. Furthermore it assumes constant vaccine efficacy during that time period. This is problematic on several counts.
First, reducing mild cases in children is not a desired clinical outcome…
Second, we know that vaccine efficacy in the month after the first dose is negative because it suppresses the immune system and it begins to wane after 4 months so all of the FDA’s estimates of vaccine efficacy are inflated…
Third, the harms of myocarditis from these shots will likely unfold over the course of years...
10. The FDA/Pfizer play fast and loose with their estimates of myocarditis.
Anyone watching the Rittenhouse case? Seems we're seeing what happens when the dog of social political science finally catches up with the prosecutors car. 😂🤣😂
I honestly wouldn't expect any real blowback even if real data ran them over in a landslide. We're a definite minority at this point, even if the vaxed started flipping sides it would be harshly worded internet posts.
Somehow we have to get back to torches and pitchforks in this country but I don't think the average person is anywhere near that annoyed.
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.
Coincidentally, I happened upon the Berenson post a couple hours ago and found it probably about as you did: nail #6,882,473 in the debate coffin of the "vax all, treat none" cultists. The standard reaction of "move along, nothing to see here," even though fatal diabetic ketoacidosis is so rare in Kaminisky's general cohort, says a lot, as always.
On a similar front, a really good substack piece by Toby Rogers titled,
Ten red flags in the FDA's risk-benefit analysis of Pfizer's EUA application to inject American children 5 to 11 with its mRNA product - The FDA briefing document is preposterous junk science and it must be withdrawn immediately
(tobyrogers.substack.com/p/ten-red-flags-in-the-fdas-risk-benefit)
I can't do justice to any of the 10 red flags here, since it's the explanations following each that give the piece its value. But I'll list their headings, anyway, just to give a taste of what really is a very well-argued and useful bit of work.
1. COVID-19 rates in children ages 5 to 11 are so low that there were ZERO cases of severe COVID-19 and ZERO cases of death from COVID in either the treatment (n= 1,518) or control group (n= 750).
2. Pfizer’s clinical trial in kids was intentionally undersized to hide harms.
3. Pfizer only enrolled “participants 5-11 years of age without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
4. Did Pfizer LOSE CONTACT with 4.9% of their clinical trial participants?
5. The follow up period was intentionally too short.
This is another well-known trick of the pharmaceutical industry designed to hide harms. Cohort 1 appears to have been followed for 2 months, cohort 2 was only monitored for adverse events for 17 days...
6. The risk-benefit model created by the FDA only looks at one known harm from the Pfizer mRNA shot — myocarditis.
7. Pfizer intentionally wipes out the control group as soon as they can by vaccinating all of the kids who initially got the placebo.
8. Given all of the above, how on earth did the FDA claim any benefits at all from this shot? You should probably sit down for this part because it’s a doozy! Here’s the key sentence:
"Vaccine effectiveness was inferred by immunobridging SARS-CoV-2 50% neutralizing antibody titers (NT50, SARS-CoV-2 mNG microneutralization assay)."
Wait, what!? I’ll explain. There were ZERO cases of severe COVID-19 in the clinical trial of children ages 5 to 11. So Pfizer and the FDA just ignored all of the actual health outcomes (they had to, there is no emergency, so the application is moot). INSTEAD Pfizer switched to looking at antibodies in the blood. In general, antibodies are a poor predictor of immunity...
9. The FDA model only assesses the benefits of vaccine protection in a 6-month period after completion of two doses. Furthermore it assumes constant vaccine efficacy during that time period. This is problematic on several counts.
First, reducing mild cases in children is not a desired clinical outcome…
Second, we know that vaccine efficacy in the month after the first dose is negative because it suppresses the immune system and it begins to wane after 4 months so all of the FDA’s estimates of vaccine efficacy are inflated…
Third, the harms of myocarditis from these shots will likely unfold over the course of years...
10. The FDA/Pfizer play fast and loose with their estimates of myocarditis.
Data may disappoint, but it never lies...
Anyone watching the Rittenhouse case? Seems we're seeing what happens when the dog of social political science finally catches up with the prosecutors car. 😂🤣😂
And yet, this, via instapundit: "George Floyd Friend Claims Rittenhouse Jurors Are Being Tracked and Photographed" ( tinyurl.com/m986jcr8 )
Ugh.
Once upon a time jury intimidation was a felony, now it's a social media sport.
Gotta love our progress!
Highly amusing from a legal spectator standpoint, but I sure hope there's some way for KR to get some back.
How to game this out? As more & more of this info comes out the the public’s been played for fools, what is the blowback & what form does it take?
Thoughts?
I honestly wouldn't expect any real blowback even if real data ran them over in a landslide. We're a definite minority at this point, even if the vaxed started flipping sides it would be harshly worded internet posts.
Somehow we have to get back to torches and pitchforks in this country but I don't think the average person is anywhere near that annoyed.
It's a sad state of affairs we live in.