Thank you for all your excellent posts Jikkyleaks. For me, this one is the best!
My background is in Pharmacology (PhD). I’m now retired but I worked in Big Pharma R&D so I know a fair bit about pre-clinical, clinical & regulatory affairs. I’ve been sceptical of the Covid narrative from early in 2020 and follow your posts avidly, because I think you are bang on the money. I am simply horrified by the corruption of science which has been exposed through the Covid debacle (but hope some good may arise from this exposé).
When the vaccine RCT results were announced in Dec ‘20 we could see that the Kaplan Meier plots looked dramatic. If you didn’t know better, they almost look like dose/response curves or close correlations in a regression analysis. But, as you say, when we drill down into the protocols we can see that they are just “bean counts” with time, created by those who decide what the “”beans” are, and control how they are counted.
I note that the vaccine is still approved in the FDA Letters of Authorisation, for the “PREVENTION of Covid 19 disease”, because that was the only endpoint for which the vaccine was supposedly “proved” efficacious by being statistically significantly different between placebo & vax in the original RCTs. Everything else pivots off the original RCTs including more recent trials which use antibodies as surrogate efficacy endpoints.
We knew from early in 2021 that the vaccines didn’t PREVENT Covid 19 disease but the public was confused (& still is confused) by the official narrative that this was due to rare “breakthrough” cases or “variants”. The public still believe the vaccines reduce disease severity even though the RCTs never proved this.
My son is a GP who was vaccinated in Feb/Mar ‘21. He & 5 friends (all vaccinated at slightly different times & places in Scotland over Jun/Jul ‘21) ALL got Covid after a weekend together in July ‘21. At this point I knew the vaccines didn’t work. But this experience also made me think the trial was probably fraudulent. How likely was it that Pfizer could only find 8 Covid cases/~20k vaccinated in their 2 month trial but I knew 6/6 vaccinated Covid cases in one weekend? Since then, almost all vaccinated people I know have had Covid and some of them, more than once.
It is totally dishonest for CDC/Public health to claim that the “vaccines work” because the RCTs on which they achieved Approval defined getting (even 1 mild symptom of PCR +ve) Covid as LACK of efficacy of the test substance (ie “vaccine” or placebo). So the endpoint that was used to say that the vaccine didn’t work is now being used to say the vaccine does work. Hearing credulous celebrities thanking the vaccine for their mild symptoms is super-annoying!
As you say, we all get caught up in trying to navigate this maze of data and flat out propaganda so it’s easy to get distracted by the ARR/RRR debate (though I would say one thing about the (fake) ARR was that it was so low, it didn’t really fit with the “raging pandemic” narrative). The bottom line for me is that the “vaccine” is approved for “PREVENTION of C19 disease” - something it clearly FAILS to do. So the FDA Authorisation Letter is based on a False Claim.
That’s a useful early video of Fauci, thanks. I believe he has a playbook:
Note how he steers the narrative …….”we don’t need to test for infection, we don’t need to do Challenge Studies, we just need to show it PREVENTS CLINICALLY RECOGNISABLE disease”……[by selecting & counting what we decide are “cases” amongst many other similarly ill people]. Once we get the “vaccine” Approved and on the market, we then cajole & coerce people to take it even though we know it’s highly unlikely to stop infection & transmission.
When the inevitable happens, and some people still get sick, we can blame this on rare “breakthrough cases” or “new variants”. We keep persuading the public that if they do get sick, their disease will be mild even though the original RCTs’ only claim for the “vaccine” in its original Letter of Authorisation, was to PREVENT C19 disease.
There’s a similar playbook for Flu vaccines. Using old “killed virus” vaccine technology, based on a cocktail of 3 or 4 circulating strains (predicted each year by the WHO), these are rolled out every winter - actually with no prior efficacy testing at all. If there happens to be a particularly nasty flu season and the public get sick or die more than usual then the fall back position is “we picked the wrong flu strains for our vaccines”. In the last 20 years there has been no correlation between flu vaccine doses & flu mortality in the US. https://twitter.com/professorakston/status/1611223622089347072?s=61&t=4HIlCogP1ZEiWoFU4r-mwg
The past 3 years have been very revealing to me. I now see “vaccines” for seasonal respiratory viruses like colds & flu as a monstrous scam. The industry must know the truth: it’s a cash cow.
To think that global leaders were discriminating against people based on their “vaccination” status with this flaky evidence base is just incredible to me.
I read your text only, since I am lowly peasant no need for me to follow up all the links. Far easier to simply reject all things from the medical profession. Thanks for your work.
"Don’t let yourself be scammed again." Like Rick Larson, I'll try, but I don't have the ability to look through these studies and find these nuggets. People like you are invaluable.
And while there are good people in the medical profession, in the top positions there are a lot more bad people. I am guessing that you are risking your livelihood by doing the work that the editors of the NEJM should have done.
I want to be natural first off, then the evaluation is what has the highest risk and reward natural versus pills and injections? I don't know, but natural is what people lived for a very long time (natural is not cramped up in cities full of people way back to then or now). Thanks for the reply, I hope your study gains traction in the medical field.
"Far easier to simply reject all things from the medical profession. "
Really, Mr Larson?
I recall when I was frustrated at "our" people jumping on the monkeypox scam without demanding to see evidence for "their" claims, you queried what evidence I needed!
I'm no scientist and some of this is above my pay grade but I get the gist of it.
If the results were actually based on a "95% reduction in the chance of testing positive for Covid by a RCR test" what was the number of cycles used in the test? I am told that by increasing the cycles you can get almost any result you want. Isn't this an issue as well?
It's an issue, but that would be about the reliability of a test. What Arkmedic discusses here is primarily the abuse of statistics. I use the example (probably stole it from someone else, I admit) of buying two lottery tickets instead of one. You have improved your chance to win by 100%. But your odds of winning are still many millions against. In most medical contexts the rates are usually in the one per 1,000 to 10,000 range. Of several that I've looked at, the prize for "Hardly does anything" currently is held by aspirin therapy, which I computed provides an annual (absolute) risk reduction for healthy people of a whopping 0.02% (not a typo, that's "two one-hundredths of a percent", although the relative risk sounded better, at about 5.7% improvement.
If I recall one of Kendrick's rules of thumb: Generally speaking, if they are claiming a benefit, they will use a relative ratio. If dissimulating adverse data, use absolute.
1-thanks for the lottery analogy. very useful way to explain/understand RR concept.
2--the PCR test validity is very much an issue. first, it is useless test and not supposed to be used this way--as a diagnostic. second, it has a false positive rate that would be unacceptable in most realms of life--e.g., investing, DWI allegations etc. and of course, presence of antibodies doesn't actually mean you will feel sick/show symptoms.
I still can't believe how shallow the pharma research is apparently. 2-3 yrs ago I would have assumed arkmedic-type analysis was part of the vetting of new drugs. how naïve I was.
Agreed. I'm dismayed how half-assed the entire industry is, from research on down to the doctor who writes Rx for your pill. I no longer trust doctors of any type, and to the extent possible, will do my own research about proposed treatments before subjecting myself to them.
Small risk, but there is a risk of serious bleeding even with the low daily dose. Just conjecturing, but I'm sure the risk of death is low, but "serious bleeding" is, well, serious.
Based upon my admittedly limited research, the risk of bleeding exceeds the expected protective benefit.
Pfizer used PCR equipment that stopped cycling as soon as a signal was detected. For many infected people that could be as low as 10 cycles. The machine is told not to cycle more than 45 times. The test uses primers that can detect 2 different regions of the Covid19 virus genome with good specificity. False positives are rare and can be traced to contamination during sample collection.
If I need a pcr cycled up to tell me why I had a sore throat and a headache with a dry cough for a day, this is insane. As a kid in Chicago we all had walking pneumonia lasting several years at a time. You ignore it and play baseball, or football or hockey. I don’t understand how hypochondriacs took over the world.
Today I made a special request to the Deep Data Miners extracting the XPT files to see if they can find the Cycle Time cut-off for each PCR test. It will be recorded somewhere, but is it in the data so far dumped? Will let you know as soon as I hear back.
I might have to disagree on this one. The evidence is that the final product did the opposite of what was stated from the trial. Ergo the trial result was falsified.
Now the next question is, did they have access to the information that could differentiate the swabs so that this could be done - without leaving an unblinding record on the database? The answer is yes.
I think we should be all working together. Geoff is a very smart guy and mostly on our side but that doesn't matter. He is a great person to provide a valid view that we should use to strongman our arguments.
Did they explain the protocol for testing? It seems to me that the only way the test results mean anything is if every single participant gets tested at the same time, like every day for the two months. Otherwise, who knows who they are testing? Maybe they tested the placebo group participants more?
The Protocol had numerous revisions. The court ordered Pfizer data is here and lots of people are looking at it. Here is the easy search page where you can enter keywords and download pdfs. https://vaccines.shinyapps.io/abstractor/
You can also track individual trial subjects once you have their ID number.
"There is no rule for the number of primers used in PCR."??
Why not use one, then?
My limited understanding re the PCR was obtained via reading on the bird since early 2020. In particular, from Kevin McKernan.
Him and various other pundits all stated that the standard protocol is THREE genetic markers. I can find what those three markers are, but I won't - since you already knew.
So, how was I willfully wrong since I based my understanding on multiple credible pundits?
So we know that all the claims of efficacy were based on PCR positives only. How do we know if all the PCR testing undertaken at Pearl River was from subjects with symptoms suggestive of Covid? If a positive test comes from an asymptomatic individual, then that would not be evidence of a reduction in symptomatic illness. So we need to know if all the PCR testing they conducted was from symptomatic subjects.
Conversely, they report 3410 cases where there were indeed symptoms suggestive of Covid infection, but apparently no PCR confirmation. Why not? Did the dog eat the results?
The claims of efficacy were based on 81 positive PCR's for treatment and 873 positive PCR's for placebo. For a total 951 positives. Yet we have the other 3410 suspected cases with no result!
I'm not sure if the actual primary endpoint was reduction in symptomatic illness or reduction in PCR positives. Because they are not the same thing. Reduction in symptomatic illness might be clinically meaningful. But reduction in PCR positives is not clinically meaningful.
In any event, it's all a complete mess....
Incidentally in the Moderna trial; as far as toxicity goes, there were 16.5% solicited systemic Grade 3 or Grade 4 SAE's in the vax group, as opposed to 3.7% in placebo. Any SAE's graded 3-5 are serious. "Grade 3 events are serious and interfere with a person’s ability to do basic things like eat or get dressed. Grade 3 events may also require medical intervention. Grade 4 events are usually severe enough to require hospitalization." (Grade 5 is death, of course.)
It's hard to imagine that you could ethically administer to many millions of well people (often via the employment of coercion) a medical intervention that, in the clinical trial, resulted in 16.5% serious systemic adverse events. How can anyone describe serious adverse events as 'very rare', when in that Moderna trial they occurred at an incidence of 16.5%!
Whereas the EUA , I think, was granted on the basis of an IA after an even shorter study period.
Sorry for that error.
Did you note the SAE's Grade 3 or 4 (therefore 'serious' as opposed to mild or moderate) in the vaccine arm of the Moderna trial? 16.5% or 1 in 6.
For me, it's the most damning data point I've seen in any of the trials. And in a rational or ethical world, just that one stat would have precluded authorisation of any kind....
Yeah that's bad although I've mostly focused on Pfizer because that is the one we have more information from, and of course because we know they are convicted frauds. The way they got around the 16% grade 3+ AE is to claim that most of those quickly resolved. Of course there is no corroboration of that.
Which means they really had a 170-subjects study, not a 44000 study, and those 170 were not even randomly selected, but cherry-picked out of a dataset that vastly attested no effect (in the advertized sense) to the product?
I am severely injured from 1 shot of moderna. It’s been over 2 years for me. My life is ruined. How do I find this data on the moderna vaccine? Can you show me the source? Thanks
Hi there. The datapoint I cited, is shown on the video of the Moderna presentation to the FDA, which led shortly after to the granting of their EUA. The committee in attendance obviously should have stopped right there and asked the Moderna rep to explain that figure. Which they failed to do (and they all moved swiftly on to the next slide).
At the 5hr 26min mark (towards the bottom of the slide):-
If they had total control of the PCR samples they could easily have engineered that roughly 14 day window that was instrumental in faking efficacy during the rollout.
Brilliant article. Even though I was aware that any PCR test is bogus and not a true measurement of anything, I still used the ARR argument.... Even taking the ARR at face value was enough to convince me that the shot wouldn’t work.... but you are right, it is a distraction. Thank you.
But what about the sentence immediately following the highlighted bit"Suspected COVID19 cases
that occured within 7 days of any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine group vs 287 in the placebo group."That's pretty damning .Clearly within the 7 days post vaccination , you were more likely to get COVID if you received the vaccine than if you received the placebo.
There were no proper trials because the injections were not proper pharmaceutical products. That is the main point.
"DOD and Pfizer agents had means, motive and opportunity, through OTA contracts, to personally ensure that
:no valid clinical trials would be conducted,
:no valid clinical data would be collected and analyzed, and
:all scientific evidence of product toxicity would be removed, altered, suppressed, falsified, destroyed, discredited or otherwise disappeared, by anyone involved anywhere in the pretend clinical trials process.
In other words, the FDA’s decisions about products manufactured by Pfizer and other DOD contractors were made long before anyone in America had ever heard of Covid-19. The clinical trials were done to support the psychological part of the military operation; the scientific validity and regulatory compliance of the trials was irrelevant".
Please clarify, the quote from the NEJM is "a 95% reduction in the chance of testing positive for COVID by a PCR test conducted at Pfizer's laboratory in Pearl River". Where does this quote come from? "Participants were followed for safety and for the development of symptomatic COVID-19"? Is it the same paper? Or are both from Pfizer's report? Are they addressing the same thing or not? In other words, was the end point the PCR result and the follow-up for symptomatic COVID or were they suggesting that the endpoint was symptomatic COVID when in fact it was just the PCR result and then only from their own lab?
Has anyone done a comparable analysis of Moderna? I recall a similar analysis (of Pfizer) like this by a group in Canada, but never Moderna or J&J. Just finished Turtles all the Way Down and now believe that a fair number of of products in this market are straight up fraudulent.
☹️Thank you for all your hard work. I feel like there will never be a recognition of all this. However, I think you have saved people from more harm as I won’t be getting anymore shots, neither will my children or extended family.
Another big red flag that put me off taking this detritus was the first "rare" breakthrough case 2 weeks after the first injection was served up here in the UK plc.
Excellent explanation. Thank you. It increasingly looks like we experienced a 'plandemic' (not a fan of this term but it seems accurate), and the main purpose of it goes beyond suckering people into getting the drug and making enormous profits. It was an exercise in getting us accustomed to complete social control. Why would the 'health' passports still be under active development otherwise?
Too many words to explain a simple concept. Question: Why would you not buy a $1000/year life insurance policy that pays $10,000,000 if you die from a lightning strike?
Thank you for all your excellent posts Jikkyleaks. For me, this one is the best!
My background is in Pharmacology (PhD). I’m now retired but I worked in Big Pharma R&D so I know a fair bit about pre-clinical, clinical & regulatory affairs. I’ve been sceptical of the Covid narrative from early in 2020 and follow your posts avidly, because I think you are bang on the money. I am simply horrified by the corruption of science which has been exposed through the Covid debacle (but hope some good may arise from this exposé).
When the vaccine RCT results were announced in Dec ‘20 we could see that the Kaplan Meier plots looked dramatic. If you didn’t know better, they almost look like dose/response curves or close correlations in a regression analysis. But, as you say, when we drill down into the protocols we can see that they are just “bean counts” with time, created by those who decide what the “”beans” are, and control how they are counted.
I note that the vaccine is still approved in the FDA Letters of Authorisation, for the “PREVENTION of Covid 19 disease”, because that was the only endpoint for which the vaccine was supposedly “proved” efficacious by being statistically significantly different between placebo & vax in the original RCTs. Everything else pivots off the original RCTs including more recent trials which use antibodies as surrogate efficacy endpoints.
We knew from early in 2021 that the vaccines didn’t PREVENT Covid 19 disease but the public was confused (& still is confused) by the official narrative that this was due to rare “breakthrough” cases or “variants”. The public still believe the vaccines reduce disease severity even though the RCTs never proved this.
My son is a GP who was vaccinated in Feb/Mar ‘21. He & 5 friends (all vaccinated at slightly different times & places in Scotland over Jun/Jul ‘21) ALL got Covid after a weekend together in July ‘21. At this point I knew the vaccines didn’t work. But this experience also made me think the trial was probably fraudulent. How likely was it that Pfizer could only find 8 Covid cases/~20k vaccinated in their 2 month trial but I knew 6/6 vaccinated Covid cases in one weekend? Since then, almost all vaccinated people I know have had Covid and some of them, more than once.
It is totally dishonest for CDC/Public health to claim that the “vaccines work” because the RCTs on which they achieved Approval defined getting (even 1 mild symptom of PCR +ve) Covid as LACK of efficacy of the test substance (ie “vaccine” or placebo). So the endpoint that was used to say that the vaccine didn’t work is now being used to say the vaccine does work. Hearing credulous celebrities thanking the vaccine for their mild symptoms is super-annoying!
As you say, we all get caught up in trying to navigate this maze of data and flat out propaganda so it’s easy to get distracted by the ARR/RRR debate (though I would say one thing about the (fake) ARR was that it was so low, it didn’t really fit with the “raging pandemic” narrative). The bottom line for me is that the “vaccine” is approved for “PREVENTION of C19 disease” - something it clearly FAILS to do. So the FDA Authorisation Letter is based on a False Claim.
I note that Peter Marks announced recently that future approvals will have to be based on RCTs https://endpts.com/next-gen-covid-vaccines-no-more-quick-variant-updates-and-rcts-may-be-required-cber-leader-writes/ though if such trials are essentially manipulated then we’re on a hiding to nothing.
Please keep up the amazing work - the truth will come out!
100% agree
We knew in October 2020 that the vaccines would not block the virus. This was admitted by Fauci in the news.
Proof here: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fauci-vaccines-will-only-prevent-symptoms-not-block-the-virus-195051568.html
That’s a useful early video of Fauci, thanks. I believe he has a playbook:
Note how he steers the narrative …….”we don’t need to test for infection, we don’t need to do Challenge Studies, we just need to show it PREVENTS CLINICALLY RECOGNISABLE disease”……[by selecting & counting what we decide are “cases” amongst many other similarly ill people]. Once we get the “vaccine” Approved and on the market, we then cajole & coerce people to take it even though we know it’s highly unlikely to stop infection & transmission.
When the inevitable happens, and some people still get sick, we can blame this on rare “breakthrough cases” or “new variants”. We keep persuading the public that if they do get sick, their disease will be mild even though the original RCTs’ only claim for the “vaccine” in its original Letter of Authorisation, was to PREVENT C19 disease.
There’s a similar playbook for Flu vaccines. Using old “killed virus” vaccine technology, based on a cocktail of 3 or 4 circulating strains (predicted each year by the WHO), these are rolled out every winter - actually with no prior efficacy testing at all. If there happens to be a particularly nasty flu season and the public get sick or die more than usual then the fall back position is “we picked the wrong flu strains for our vaccines”. In the last 20 years there has been no correlation between flu vaccine doses & flu mortality in the US. https://twitter.com/professorakston/status/1611223622089347072?s=61&t=4HIlCogP1ZEiWoFU4r-mwg
The past 3 years have been very revealing to me. I now see “vaccines” for seasonal respiratory viruses like colds & flu as a monstrous scam. The industry must know the truth: it’s a cash cow.
To think that global leaders were discriminating against people based on their “vaccination” status with this flaky evidence base is just incredible to me.
I read your text only, since I am lowly peasant no need for me to follow up all the links. Far easier to simply reject all things from the medical profession. Thanks for your work.
Some in the medical profession are good people. Some unfortunately have been too trusting of their governments and institutions.
"Don’t let yourself be scammed again." Like Rick Larson, I'll try, but I don't have the ability to look through these studies and find these nuggets. People like you are invaluable.
And while there are good people in the medical profession, in the top positions there are a lot more bad people. I am guessing that you are risking your livelihood by doing the work that the editors of the NEJM should have done.
I want to be natural first off, then the evaluation is what has the highest risk and reward natural versus pills and injections? I don't know, but natural is what people lived for a very long time (natural is not cramped up in cities full of people way back to then or now). Thanks for the reply, I hope your study gains traction in the medical field.
Three types - good and anti based on what they were observing, evil and part of the 'plan' and useful idiots that 'trusted'.
"Far easier to simply reject all things from the medical profession. "
Really, Mr Larson?
I recall when I was frustrated at "our" people jumping on the monkeypox scam without demanding to see evidence for "their" claims, you queried what evidence I needed!
I haven't seen a doctor for decades - you got me there.
Yep. ARR, RRR, it was all BS. The only truth was negative efficacy. Period.
Succinctly put
I try.
I'm no scientist and some of this is above my pay grade but I get the gist of it.
If the results were actually based on a "95% reduction in the chance of testing positive for Covid by a RCR test" what was the number of cycles used in the test? I am told that by increasing the cycles you can get almost any result you want. Isn't this an issue as well?
It's an issue, but that would be about the reliability of a test. What Arkmedic discusses here is primarily the abuse of statistics. I use the example (probably stole it from someone else, I admit) of buying two lottery tickets instead of one. You have improved your chance to win by 100%. But your odds of winning are still many millions against. In most medical contexts the rates are usually in the one per 1,000 to 10,000 range. Of several that I've looked at, the prize for "Hardly does anything" currently is held by aspirin therapy, which I computed provides an annual (absolute) risk reduction for healthy people of a whopping 0.02% (not a typo, that's "two one-hundredths of a percent", although the relative risk sounded better, at about 5.7% improvement.
If I recall one of Kendrick's rules of thumb: Generally speaking, if they are claiming a benefit, they will use a relative ratio. If dissimulating adverse data, use absolute.
1-thanks for the lottery analogy. very useful way to explain/understand RR concept.
2--the PCR test validity is very much an issue. first, it is useless test and not supposed to be used this way--as a diagnostic. second, it has a false positive rate that would be unacceptable in most realms of life--e.g., investing, DWI allegations etc. and of course, presence of antibodies doesn't actually mean you will feel sick/show symptoms.
I still can't believe how shallow the pharma research is apparently. 2-3 yrs ago I would have assumed arkmedic-type analysis was part of the vetting of new drugs. how naïve I was.
Agreed. I'm dismayed how half-assed the entire industry is, from research on down to the doctor who writes Rx for your pill. I no longer trust doctors of any type, and to the extent possible, will do my own research about proposed treatments before subjecting myself to them.
At least a daily aspirin won't kill you?! Or will it?!
Small risk, but there is a risk of serious bleeding even with the low daily dose. Just conjecturing, but I'm sure the risk of death is low, but "serious bleeding" is, well, serious.
Based upon my admittedly limited research, the risk of bleeding exceeds the expected protective benefit.
I had a mini stroke after month or so of taking aspirin for a condition. I'll never take aspirin again.
Pfizer used PCR equipment that stopped cycling as soon as a signal was detected. For many infected people that could be as low as 10 cycles. The machine is told not to cycle more than 45 times. The test uses primers that can detect 2 different regions of the Covid19 virus genome with good specificity. False positives are rare and can be traced to contamination during sample collection.
What if the cycle thresholds were set differently for the two groups?...
If I need a pcr cycled up to tell me why I had a sore throat and a headache with a dry cough for a day, this is insane. As a kid in Chicago we all had walking pneumonia lasting several years at a time. You ignore it and play baseball, or football or hockey. I don’t understand how hypochondriacs took over the world.
Today I made a special request to the Deep Data Miners extracting the XPT files to see if they can find the Cycle Time cut-off for each PCR test. It will be recorded somewhere, but is it in the data so far dumped? Will let you know as soon as I hear back.
https://vaccines.shinyapps.io/abstractor/
I wondered that as well
Please clarify "two groups"
Placebo group and BNT162b2 group. What if the samples were processed at different Ct thresholds?
No evidence of that. Unless Brook can reveal something along those lines?
I might have to disagree on this one. The evidence is that the final product did the opposite of what was stated from the trial. Ergo the trial result was falsified.
Now the next question is, did they have access to the information that could differentiate the swabs so that this could be done - without leaving an unblinding record on the database? The answer is yes.
What if the samples were only processed on paper only?
As you can read, I am having a jab at Dr Pain for his comments.
I think we should be all working together. Geoff is a very smart guy and mostly on our side but that doesn't matter. He is a great person to provide a valid view that we should use to strongman our arguments.
Presumably placebo vs treatment.
Did they explain the protocol for testing? It seems to me that the only way the test results mean anything is if every single participant gets tested at the same time, like every day for the two months. Otherwise, who knows who they are testing? Maybe they tested the placebo group participants more?
The Protocol had numerous revisions. The court ordered Pfizer data is here and lots of people are looking at it. Here is the easy search page where you can enter keywords and download pdfs. https://vaccines.shinyapps.io/abstractor/
You can also track individual trial subjects once you have their ID number.
Dr Pain,
Have you compared what the pfizer documents claimed to the abundant empirics??
empirics, little used word.
Please answer my question?
That word is basal to any one with a PhD in science or economics, in particular.
I recall reading that pfizer used a max of 32 CT; definitely not 45.
A legit PCR test uses 3 different markers to test.
"False positives are rare ..." ?
Are you really the Dr Pain that I have been in correspondence with on Substack and GETTR?
You really are so wilfully wrong. You can't recall facts that are in black and white. There is no rule for the number of primers used in PCR.
"There is no rule for the number of primers used in PCR."??
Why not use one, then?
My limited understanding re the PCR was obtained via reading on the bird since early 2020. In particular, from Kevin McKernan.
Him and various other pundits all stated that the standard protocol is THREE genetic markers. I can find what those three markers are, but I won't - since you already knew.
So, how was I willfully wrong since I based my understanding on multiple credible pundits?
So we know that all the claims of efficacy were based on PCR positives only. How do we know if all the PCR testing undertaken at Pearl River was from subjects with symptoms suggestive of Covid? If a positive test comes from an asymptomatic individual, then that would not be evidence of a reduction in symptomatic illness. So we need to know if all the PCR testing they conducted was from symptomatic subjects.
Conversely, they report 3410 cases where there were indeed symptoms suggestive of Covid infection, but apparently no PCR confirmation. Why not? Did the dog eat the results?
The claims of efficacy were based on 81 positive PCR's for treatment and 873 positive PCR's for placebo. For a total 951 positives. Yet we have the other 3410 suspected cases with no result!
I'm not sure if the actual primary endpoint was reduction in symptomatic illness or reduction in PCR positives. Because they are not the same thing. Reduction in symptomatic illness might be clinically meaningful. But reduction in PCR positives is not clinically meaningful.
In any event, it's all a complete mess....
Incidentally in the Moderna trial; as far as toxicity goes, there were 16.5% solicited systemic Grade 3 or Grade 4 SAE's in the vax group, as opposed to 3.7% in placebo. Any SAE's graded 3-5 are serious. "Grade 3 events are serious and interfere with a person’s ability to do basic things like eat or get dressed. Grade 3 events may also require medical intervention. Grade 4 events are usually severe enough to require hospitalization." (Grade 5 is death, of course.)
It's hard to imagine that you could ethically administer to many millions of well people (often via the employment of coercion) a medical intervention that, in the clinical trial, resulted in 16.5% serious systemic adverse events. How can anyone describe serious adverse events as 'very rare', when in that Moderna trial they occurred at an incidence of 16.5%!
No actually the result was based on 162 vs 8 positives
Yes, I inadvertently quoted the figures from the later interim analysis done at 6 months.
As reported here:-
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full.pdf
Whereas the EUA , I think, was granted on the basis of an IA after an even shorter study period.
Sorry for that error.
Did you note the SAE's Grade 3 or 4 (therefore 'serious' as opposed to mild or moderate) in the vaccine arm of the Moderna trial? 16.5% or 1 in 6.
For me, it's the most damning data point I've seen in any of the trials. And in a rational or ethical world, just that one stat would have precluded authorisation of any kind....
Yeah that's bad although I've mostly focused on Pfizer because that is the one we have more information from, and of course because we know they are convicted frauds. The way they got around the 16% grade 3+ AE is to claim that most of those quickly resolved. Of course there is no corroboration of that.
Which means they really had a 170-subjects study, not a 44000 study, and those 170 were not even randomly selected, but cherry-picked out of a dataset that vastly attested no effect (in the advertized sense) to the product?
I am severely injured from 1 shot of moderna. It’s been over 2 years for me. My life is ruined. How do I find this data on the moderna vaccine? Can you show me the source? Thanks
There is a Moderna VRBPAC submission one week later... Filename on FDA website should be VRBPAC-12.17.20-Meeting-Briefing-Document-Sponsor_Moderna.pdf
Hi there. The datapoint I cited, is shown on the video of the Moderna presentation to the FDA, which led shortly after to the granting of their EUA. The committee in attendance obviously should have stopped right there and asked the Moderna rep to explain that figure. Which they failed to do (and they all moved swiftly on to the next slide).
At the 5hr 26min mark (towards the bottom of the slide):-
https://youtu.be/mQPMNmvZgi8?t=19579
Above SAE incidence is reported on the corresponding Moderna vid at the 5hr 26 min mark:-
https://youtu.be/mQPMNmvZgi8?t=19581
If they had total control of the PCR samples they could easily have engineered that roughly 14 day window that was instrumental in faking efficacy during the rollout.
Correct
Brilliant article. Even though I was aware that any PCR test is bogus and not a true measurement of anything, I still used the ARR argument.... Even taking the ARR at face value was enough to convince me that the shot wouldn’t work.... but you are right, it is a distraction. Thank you.
But what about the sentence immediately following the highlighted bit"Suspected COVID19 cases
that occured within 7 days of any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine group vs 287 in the placebo group."That's pretty damning .Clearly within the 7 days post vaccination , you were more likely to get COVID if you received the vaccine than if you received the placebo.
Yep
There were no proper trials because the injections were not proper pharmaceutical products. That is the main point.
"DOD and Pfizer agents had means, motive and opportunity, through OTA contracts, to personally ensure that
:no valid clinical trials would be conducted,
:no valid clinical data would be collected and analyzed, and
:all scientific evidence of product toxicity would be removed, altered, suppressed, falsified, destroyed, discredited or otherwise disappeared, by anyone involved anywhere in the pretend clinical trials process.
In other words, the FDA’s decisions about products manufactured by Pfizer and other DOD contractors were made long before anyone in America had ever heard of Covid-19. The clinical trials were done to support the psychological part of the military operation; the scientific validity and regulatory compliance of the trials was irrelevant".
https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/repost-other-transaction-authority?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=37889&post_id=97482300&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
Yikes!
Please clarify, the quote from the NEJM is "a 95% reduction in the chance of testing positive for COVID by a PCR test conducted at Pfizer's laboratory in Pearl River". Where does this quote come from? "Participants were followed for safety and for the development of symptomatic COVID-19"? Is it the same paper? Or are both from Pfizer's report? Are they addressing the same thing or not? In other words, was the end point the PCR result and the follow-up for symptomatic COVID or were they suggesting that the endpoint was symptomatic COVID when in fact it was just the PCR result and then only from their own lab?
The quote is mine. It is an explanation of what they actually found. They just missed some words when they did it
Has anyone done a comparable analysis of Moderna? I recall a similar analysis (of Pfizer) like this by a group in Canada, but never Moderna or J&J. Just finished Turtles all the Way Down and now believe that a fair number of of products in this market are straight up fraudulent.
Just an FYI: they wanted their results suppressed for 75 years not 55. Either way, they didn’t want their criminal behavior exposed.
☹️Thank you for all your hard work. I feel like there will never be a recognition of all this. However, I think you have saved people from more harm as I won’t be getting anymore shots, neither will my children or extended family.
Another big red flag that put me off taking this detritus was the first "rare" breakthrough case 2 weeks after the first injection was served up here in the UK plc.
Excellent explanation. Thank you. It increasingly looks like we experienced a 'plandemic' (not a fan of this term but it seems accurate), and the main purpose of it goes beyond suckering people into getting the drug and making enormous profits. It was an exercise in getting us accustomed to complete social control. Why would the 'health' passports still be under active development otherwise?
Too many words to explain a simple concept. Question: Why would you not buy a $1000/year life insurance policy that pays $10,000,000 if you die from a lightning strike?
Next you'll be telling me that my asteroid impact insurance was foolish. 😁
Even better - more succinct (-: