COVID AND THE VACCINE - TRUTH, LIES, AND MISCONCEPTIONS REVEALED, page-69225

"Im just saying it would be easier to corrupt a few fringe doctors and scientists plus hack in and change official data to support the antivaxxer argument."

So you claim to believe there's a conspiracy on the part of certain doctors and scientists to sway public opinion against the Covid shots?

I have a couple of questions, just for clarity, if you'd be so kind as to answer...

1. What is the "antivaxxer argument" ?

2. Who are the people who apparently all hold exactly the same view?

3. What evidence do you have they conspired to "hack in and change official data" ?

As for your claim that it's a "fringe" group, you may like to know that thousands of doctors and scientists signed the Rome declaration declaring crimes against humanity. If you go to phmt.org, you can find a long list of eminent professionals who have sued to get hold of Pfizer's raw data. They wouldn't have done so if they had confidence in it.

In the UK, there was resistance early on to the mandates coming from high level medical professionals such as Steve James and Ahmad Malik. NHS staff held highly organised demonstrations (You can find online videos of nurses hurling their uniforms at Downing Street). If they'd been a "fringe" minority, the government wouldn't have backed down.

As for medical professionals keeping quiet, that's not necessarily because they're corrupt. Australian medical professionals are more highly paid and have more to lose. AHPRA fires anyone who speaks out publicly against the Covid vaccines. Censorship is equally vicious in the US: you can listen to the FDA ADCOM on boosters where Senior Editor of the BMJ Peter Doshi speaks of the "chilling" effect that doctors who go against the narrative risk losing their medical licence.

The Lancet. Brought to you by Pfizer?

As I've already said, what I think is most common is wilful blindness. Whatever group has controlled the pharmaceutical industry knows that many doctors don't bother to read beyond the abstract, let alone look in the supplementary appendix where the most revealing data are often buried. They see a big name journal and just trust that, even though their editors themselves have said much of the published work can't be trusted (Marcia Angell of the NEJM) and Richard Horton of the Lancet (which have been both the most pro-vaccine journals these past two years) have been the most vocal.

As far back as 2005, Richard Horton said journals were a marketing arm of the pharmaceutical industry:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1140949/

The paper says the problem comes from the clinical trials themselves. Efficacy is inflated (Pitrou et al.'s analysis of 120 RCTs also found harms were minimised, even in results published in high impact journals) not so much by fiddling the results but by asking the right questions.

The orginal RCTs didn't ask the hard questions. They weren't designed to show whether the products reduced the risk of transmission or severe disease leading to hospitalisation, morbidity or death. Efficacy was based on participants' reporting (or not) symptoms and a positive test, where, in the case of the mRNA products, protocol stated investigators could use clinical judgement as to whether or not to test in a setting which was not properly blinded.

Writing in the journal Vaccine, Hellerstein said that focus on antibodies was misplaced:

"Antibody response is often a poor marker of prior coronavirus infection, particularly in mild infections, and is shorter-lived than virus-reactive T-cells"More alarmingly (my emphasis), he goes on to say:

"Indeed, it is unclear whether antibody production is protective or pathogenic in coronavirus infections. Early data with SARS-CoV-2 support these findings. Data from coronavirus infections in animals and humans emphasize the generation of a high-quality T cell response in protective immunity"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590136220300231?via%3Dihub


The FDA itself said antibody tests shouldn't be relied on to evaluate immunity, likely not just because the tests themselves can be unreliable but because it's well known that T cell response is more protective. Studies in humans and animals have shown this. People who recovered from SARS1 had protection lasting for 17 years.

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reminding the public and health care providers that results from currently authorized SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests should not be used to evaluate a person’s level of immunity or protection from COVID-19 at any time, and especially after the person received a COVID-19 vaccination".

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/antibody-testing-not-currently-recommended-assess-immunity-after-covid-19-vaccination-fda-safety

None of the original trials had the PE of reduced risk of severe disease. None of them measured the effect of reduced risk of transmission. The results showed the products were symptom mitigators at best, a prophylactic therapy with a limited window of efficacy. Only relative, not absolute, risk reduction was reported, which is highly misleading, bordering on fraud actually.

The mRNA products showed no benefit in mortality, even against alpha, where they were supposedly most effective. The Pfizer product showed absolutely no mortality or morbidity benefit.

It's particularly shocking that despite setting a very low bar for efficacy - a temporary immune response (not using biomarkers from bloodwork from each participant to test for CD4 and CD8 levels), there's STILL evidence of actual fiddling the results on the Pfizer trial. Brook Jackson's allegations that serious fraud went on with respect to both efficacy and safety on the Pfizer trials were published in the BMJ. Her allegations haven't been proven (the case is ongoing) but it's suspicious there was a relatively high number of exclusions due to apparent protocol violations in the treatment arm.

Then there's the large number of "suspected Covid" cases that appeared only in the FDA report. (Professor Norman Fenton found the same practice went on in the Israeli trial that reported 95% efficacy). If the biggest smoking gun of all is zero efficacy or worse disease that Fenton and Mathew Crawford appear to suspect, then it's the FDA that put it into their hands.

Even if the cases were eventually tested and found to be negative for Covid, the gold standard PE for any therapy is all cause mortality and morbidity. You don't want a product that keeps you out of hospital for Covid but puts you in hospital for something else. That's just common sense. Note in the FDA report that two of these cases of "suspected Covid" were hospitalised. They occurred within the first seven days (when investigators could choose whether or not to test) and were considered to a reaction to the first dose.

The FDA report gives credibility to what Fenton says re. confounding factors in real-world efficacy:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357778435_Official_mortality_data_for_England_suggest_systematic_miscategorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination

Often patients are recorded as unvaccinated until two weeks after the second dose. This could perhaps explain the "mistake" made at a press conference where an Australian health minister (on two different occasions) reported that the majority of ICU cases were vaccinated. It was later changed to "unvaccinated".

As for the claims that the vaccines have saved lives, official data shows excess deaths in highly jabbed countries that correlate with the roll out. Norman Fenton and Martin Neil's analysis found the more you vaccinate, the higher the excess mortality:


https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-devils-advocate-an-exploratory

You can comment on the article yourself if you disagree with their findings.

@Scott th Ratbag Thank you for your reply to my previous post. I'd be interested to know what your take is on the Fenton and Neil analysis. I'm not sure what you meant by mortality being different according to Rep and Dem states - I don't what this has to do with politics - but here's an analysis on excess mortality, specifically in Massachusetts by Coquin de Chien, that I find thorough. Again, you can comment on the Substack article if you disagree:

https://coquindechien.substack.com/p/c19-vaccine-the-cause-of-causes

We have unclear efficacy and clear evidence of harm. There are four participants speaking out publicly about their severe, life-threatening injuries they say were not investigated or covered up. Maddie de Garay was paralysed in a cohort of only just over 1000. From listening to a previous interview with her mother, I believe the diagnosis is MIS-C.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dearly-Discarded-Unheard-Stories-Pandemic/dp/B09TXFDNKK

Are these people engaging in some kind of conspiracy too?