Possible Door Opener #2 - What it means to "Follow the Science"? Whose science? Are we just playing favorites?
Possible Door Opener #2 - What it means to "Follow the Science"? Whose science? Are we just playing favorites?
Red flags to watch for in reports claiming efficacy of the vax
Quick note: a link to the BMJ article on research fraud was added to the bottom of this post on August 12, 2022.
So here is a common question:
How do you, as a non-scientist, think you have the background to tell me that all the studies I find supporting mRNA vaccination are flawed? It just sounds like you are biased against any that don’t come to the same conclusion that you are specifically looking for!!
And here is a possible response:
First of all, you are right - I am not a scientist, but I have been learning from those in the field who are. And when they talk about looking at studies, they show that we need to go beyond the studies done by data modelers and population level number crunchers who claim the vax has high degrees of efficacy rates. I learned from them to be careful around studies that have these characteristics:
a) They do not weigh benefits over risks in their studies - all they do is calculate "vaccine efficacy" but not "vaccine necessity" i.e., is it needed for people of this demographic? What is the REAL actual probability that they will catch the disease with X symptoms at this time? What other options could there be instead, etc.?
b) They do not have biologists, virologists, vaccinologists on the team - if people on the research project deal with macro level population numbers, pandemic planning, mathematical modelling etc.; and if all they can rely on are statistics and numerical data; and if there is no one to look at the microbiological level - what happens when the vaccine product enters the cell, encounters the virus, etc. etc.,; the study's findings are not specific enough upon which to base life and death policy decisions. A study like this is as valuable as Skinner’s Black Box theories were about brain processes, looking at things from the outside before MRIs & CT scans were invented. Contrast that with the knowledge that happens when biologists can get a real look at what is going on inside the brain. If the study authors understood the biochemistry around antibodies, etc. they would make allowances in their study design for immunity from prior recoveries from COVID for example. They would then recognize that this factor, if taken into account, would have a great impact on their data. If the authours limit their research to studies that make it to the government’s “trusted sources” they would not, for example be aware of Dr. Steven Pelech’s findings at the University of British Columbia. Listen to this talk here, as it introduces many related concepts at a basic level: https://cansef.ca/interviews/interview-with-dr-steven-pelech/ Researchers who are also not taking into account how on a cellular level, taking the shot AFTER recovery wreaks the acquired immunity and leaves the person open to even more infection also end up with flawed conclusions.
c) There is no consideration of whether participants in either the treatment or the placebo group have previous antibodies to earlier Corona viruses or even to the first version of SARS from 17 years ago. That would have an impact on the "vaccine efficacy" numbers - someone could not get an infection post jab, not because of the jab but because of their immunity. If the study is not tracking this possibility, keep in mind that with a proven "herd immunity" in Canada of over 90% for months already, much of the "efficacy" might be misattributed to the vaccine products. Conversely, if the discussion around the study results makes no mention of the possibility that there may be MORE cases of COVID the MORE doses of the vax a person has had, the study design is suspect, as that has been shown in daily data for months now. Repeat inoculations are driving DOWN the level of a person's immunity.
d) If they still cite Pfizer's cooked data as showing a 95% VE (or vaccine efficacy), you could call them on the data dumps ORDERED BY THE COURT in Texas (Judge Pittman deserves all of our gratitude for disallowing the proposed freeze on data for 70ish years!) See https://r.8b.io/387157/assets/files/Pfizer_Data_Drop.pdf for starters. Since then there have been many more damming findings released. If you have NOT heard of this news story going on now for over 5 months, you too are a victim of censorship and journalists were not doing their job!!
e) There is no recognition in the study of the HUGE numbers of fatalities, the all-cause mortality rate reaching casualty numbers among Millennials similar to or worse than Vietnam War levels . (Look up Edward Dowd and Naomi Wolf or Steve Kirsch for more discussion around this very alarming development.)
f) There is no recognition of the dismal record of unreliable PCR test results, so that any meta-analysis is nearly worthless, given that "case" counts be similar to what happens when a toddler counts cars on the road before learning number sequence. “Look Daddy at how many cars (cases) there are....12436978” etc. Study authors who do not take in to account that the case counts they refer to in their work could well be derived from PCR cycles set above the manufacturers limit for unbiased results, are simply making assumptions that don’t hold water.
g) It might be that the study's authors make "assumptions" without actually verifying if they are on track or not. Dr. Byram Bridle showed the magnitude of this error just days after a certain study on the so called risks that the UNvaccinated pose to the Vaccinated. This study certainly should have given off alarm bells for anyone who read it! (Doesn't the vaccine "protect" people?) Plus, there is the pesky matter of the Journalists' Code of Ethics requiring every news organization to share multiple perspectives on the news. Had anyone thought to invite Dr. Bridle onto their shows to have him explain how error ridden that hastily run report was? No!!
h) Look also to see if any of the data is pre March 2021 - Let's boil some eggs and take them out of the water after one minute of boiling, shall we? In this business, the longer we can see how the body reacts to something, the more we can see its safety or lack thereof. Studies of short duration are like eggs with running whites taken out of the water too soon. It doesn't take much effort to look at some of the Rapid Reviews given to Alberta Health Services by the Scientific Advisory Group (SAG) to notice that whether the sources cited refer to data gathered before or after June 2021. If you wouldn't invest your money on stock values from over a year ago, you can't let anyone tell you that the "science says" when really they should be saying "science said" or even "once upon a time, science used to say..."
i) And if a media report cites experts in the field, please be aware that the Canadian Association of Journalists' Ethics Guidelines https://caj.ca/ethics-guidelines requires journalists to be transparent about the expert’s potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Leslyn Lewis recently showed how the associations of all three "scientific experts" asked by the CBC to comment on the information she was highlighting were each connected in some way to the interests of those whom she has critiqued in the past. To hide that two of the three were tied to the very foundation that benefits from the manufacturing of the lipid nanoparticles encasing the mRNA in each shot purchased by Canada demonstrates a total lack of investigative awareness. See: https://leslynlewis.ca/blog/world-health-assembly-vote-conspiracy-or-fact/ alongside of any interview with Dr. David Martin re: the Trudeau Foundation and you will get my drift. Likewise, if journals are referenced or university think tanks are cited, it must be clear whether they or their board members are somehow tied to the various social media vax investors, the vaccine companies themselves or to the world’s leading corporate network (The World Economic Forum). Any purported findings they might claim need to be corroborated independently. One way to find independent professionals in the know in Canada is to contact the Canadian Covid Care Alliance.
Further food for thought
Did it occur to anyone to ask the experts cited in the CBC article about Dr. Lewis to put the proof of what they were dissing her about SIDE BY SIDE with her evidence as a holder of a PhD in International Law (not to mention her other degrees in Business and Environmental Science?) Ditto for any expert who has been telling us for two years now how "safe and effective" these products really are? On whose authority were they making those claims? With which data? What on earth was Health Minister Yves Duclos citing when he started floating the idea of mandating the third shot? How much blood would he have on his hands if he were to go ahead with the policy? Why were the journalists covering that story silent? Which bosses are clamping down on what news? Why? And what did all our investigative journalists actually do to "investigate" the truth of his statement before publishing it? We are not teaching our children well when we only justify all our requests to them with "because I said so!" So why accept this of M. Duclos without questioning?
Back to the question if the vaccine is really safe or not...
Listen to medical microbiologist/biochemist and MD Dr. Michael Palmer describe what happens on a cellular level:
https://doctors4covidethics.org/video-replays-d4ce-symposium-iv-session-i/
Here is a simple lay person's description of only ONE of the possible mechanisms of these products: : Vax --> mRNA travels to densest organs, where its lipid nanoparticle "canoe" gets stuck wherever the streams are the smallest (likely in a blood rich organ like ovaries, liver, heart, brain, lung, etc.) --> mRNA exits from the "canoe" and steps on land teaching the nearby cells how to make spike protein (a foreign substance) the nearest cells are in the lining of the blood vessels --> proudly holding on to their new construction project, along comes the body's lymph cell army ripping out the foreign spike cells, taking along the cell that made each spike---> think cookie monster and crumbs --> those crumbs are now the start of new blood clots.... think snowballs, some rolling and growing faster than others. That is why when there is spike protein still being found up to 6 months later and folks getting strokes, heart attacks, tingling nerves, etc. even NINE months after the vax, they are all related. No telling where the clots get shoved around and when they are finally big enough to block the passage of oxygen, food, etc. to the cells downstream. Everything from losing a toe or foot to gangrene to having blood clots behind the eyeballs, burning neuropathy in the fingertips, it's a toss up - when and if something will go wrong.
Another description coming from the lipid nanoparticle angle can be found here:
So if study authors and or journal writers gush about efficacy and there has not even yet been a 6 month time frame, that is just HOPE. Have you noted the director of the CDC Dr. Walensky admitting that essentially they were only HOPING that the vax would be effective and safe, etc.? Likely not, as the censored media would be under orders not to let that information through, because it contradicts Tam & Duclos’ “Because I said so.”
Before policy makers enact some kind of COVID-19 mitigation policy, based on an edict from on high, please encourage them to “ask for proof” and volunteer your support, especially if they were wondering the same thing, but are fearing some kind of negative consequences simply for asking. Employers and employees at workplace can decide jointly to push for proof from public health that the edicts being mandated are PROVEN to work, i.e. that they reflect the current realities on the ground. For help with this, turn to the specialists in evidence-based medicine at the Canadian Covid Care Alliance. Working collaboratively with evidence-based partners worldwide, they are following all newly published and pre-print studies coming out in real time.
Their subsequent commentary on policy decisions that make no scientific sense are published (either on the CCCA website or on substacks by some of its members) within days. A recent example is the University of Toronto’s recent declaration that students living in residence must be “up to date” with their vaccination - completely disregards the concerning number of deaths in Toronto area hospitals of young healthy physician occurring just days after the roll out of the 4th shot. Can it be that U of T officials are completely ignorant of what is going on in their very city? Or is there such a taboo against breaking free of the pro-vaccine narrative that like those fawning over the Emperor who had No Clothes, NO ONE CAN STATE THE OBVIOUS?? Staff should stand up collectively and demand proof jointly, instead of each trying to balance the risk of job loss with the hit to their conscience!
In contrast to the ongoing real-time review of facts on the ground engaged in by networks of professionally trained research scientists and hands-on physicians, public health officials in governments appear to turn to specialist advisory councils made up of a handful of doctors, professors and researchers who have FULL TIME OTHER JOBS. These who rely on health librarians etc. without a specialization in topics at the cellular level, to gather published and pre-print data from ‘trusted’ sources, over specified time frames. The relatively small committees of advisors then need to find time around their day-jobs to turn around and extract in a relatively short time frame for presentation to the government, but this guidance is not continually updated with new incoming data on an ongoing basis. Neither is the guidance run by recognized independent experts for commentary and further consideration. Guidance documents (called Rapid Reviews) written by Alberta’s SAG are then shared with other provinces which may or may not have similar guidance committees. A look at the SAG’s methodology https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/ppih/if-ppih-covid-19-sag-rapid-review-methodology.pdf confirms this lack of continuous and ongoing review by those with hands-on expertise with COVID-19 and LongCovid patients, or the C-19 vax-injured.
For example, the Rapid Review written in June 2021 for questions related to post-COVID infections profiles the work of over 10 subcommittees - each working on their area of expertise (professors of respirology, psychiatry, etc. etc.) with the general sense that at the time, there has been too little data to come up with much of substance upon which to issue recommendations. Sadly, the entire body appears compartmentalized, it is not evident that each committee paid much attention to the system-wide impacts of the SARS-CoV-2 virus on the entire body. There is no obvious organizing principle such as the one followed by US physicians already treating COVID-19 before the first wave hit Canada.
There is nothing in the SAG terms of reference to suggest an process of ongoing revisions, timely updates, evergreening of documents to ensure that when physicians refer to them, the statements made reflect current realities in the field. https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/ppih/if-ppih-covid-19-sag-terms-of-reference.pdf. Concerning also is how there appear to be no references to the three stages of the progression of COVID-19 from a treatment perspective, not in this Rapid Review, nor in any of the others. https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/topics/Page17074.aspx I invite others to take a deeper dive to see if any of the Rapid Reviews address what has been well known and documented by physicians who have been treating COVID-19 symptoms with early treatment protocols since the start of the first Wuhan waves in the USA in early 2020 and made public in November 2020 here: https://ratical.org/PandemicParallaxView/DrMcCulloughC19OutpatientTreatmnt.html and in the academic literature in December 2020 here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33387997/.
Moving forward, any new mandates need to pass the “sniff test” i.e., how do they reflect an understanding of the basic principles of disease transmission? Dr. John Hardie, a retired medical expert, recently took the time to explain to young people how disease transmission works. His latest three videos are here:
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/68kyqt9wbNxs/ awaiting further processing. His recent article (already published on the CCCA site) explains the key principles in further detail: https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/media-resources/covid-19-policy-critique-long-term-care-facilities/ .
Given this information why push lockdowns, masks and injections that FAIL the risk vs benefit test and and don’t align with current science?
If the studies cited by AB Health or Health Canada ACTUALLY showed that since June 2021, the benefits outweigh the risks, that would be another matter. But they cannot.
If you are new to the world of evidence-based medical and scientific experts critical of the corporate “safe & effective” narrative, I invite you to listen to this two hour panel discussion with some of the biggest names in COVID patient care and vaccine development: https://rumble.com/v1ejdup-crony-capitalism-big-pharma-and-vaccines-ft.-sen.-johnson-dr.-kory-dr.-malo.html Learn of the high price they paid to keep saving lives as the juggernaut of big corp rolls across the land luring the politicians and squishing the compliant.
Add to that some Canadian voices, for example this two hour documentary "Uninformed Consent."
Visit the website of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance to educate yourself on issues such as
—> #StopTheShots (Covid vaccine products not needed for children)
—> More Harm than Good (Pfizer data manipulations)
and any of the documents posted here:
https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/community/ (like the Talk to Your Candidates brochures)
Other posts to help lay it all out for you include:
- And for information on the ASTOUNDING change to the drug approval process just for COVID...and the reason that Health Canada has NO PROOF TO SHARE, please see:
For the inquisitive among you, consider opening up a Telegram account to be able to follow someone of Dr. Peter McCullough’s stature - a leader among giants, who draws attention to incoming new publications on a near daily basis. https://t.me/PeterMcCulloughMD
Finally, if you have the time and the inclination to continue, there are additional information sources to consider in this post encouraging pharmacists to PUSH FOR PROOF! (See WHOA! Calling all Pharmacists to Stop the Shots! elsewhere on this Substack.)
Additionally, if you want to read more about fraud in the medical publication industry, this commentary from the BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal) might be riveting! https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-health-research-is-fraudulent-until-proved-otherwise/
A healthy dose of skepticism is ALWAYS GOOD. A lack of skepticism leads to blind trust and the dangers that brings. Hopefully this list of questions to ask when demanding data and looking at what is provided (if anything) is helpful to all willing to actually put in the effort of screening for validity.