THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF OUR FAKE WORLD? PART 2
We are witnessing an unprecedented failure of policy, medicine and science. The world will never be the same again".- Eugyppius on Substack
Just to clarify from my previous post:
57435797. IMO Remestemcel-L worked well on its own. It worked particularly well when Dex became SoC but I'm doubtful of a synergy. I had been critical of Dex in ARDS from the time of the results of the Recovery Trial. I wasn't surprised by the results in the SoC + Dex arm.
In the light of the recent public allegations of corruption in the NIH, the potential conflict of interest re. Moderna patents, I question the ethics of the FDA in making MSB run another trial, subjecting any more poor souls to a placebo when the product has a window of efficacy.
I've decided to split the topic into three parts.
Anyone who's not in a robust frame of mind should give it a miss. It won't be a popular post. I criticise the science of the Covid vaccines because IMO it's crucial to understanding the deep-level upheaval going on, also where Remestemcel-L and MSB might fit now. MSB has revolutionary science and is emerging at an inflection point in history, a time where high level debate is going on among those who see a widespread attack on the principles of science, medical ethics and democracy (I put a link below to respected high profile hematologist Prof Vinay Prasad's essay,
How Democracy Ends. He mentions Australia and you may know about the bill here in Victoria). I half agree with Eugyppius but my view is what's come to the forefront has been with us for a long time. It's being writ large because it's on its way out.
In this post I discuss:
- The most confronting and fundamental thing that's best expressed by Peter Doshi
- How MSB does science v Pfizer: A comparison between two immunomodulatory Covid Treatments
Kostoff et al use the term 'inoculated' rather than vaccinated because the injectable Covid products don't prevent infection or transmission. Their main function in practice appears to be symptoms suppression and are therefore operationally a 'treatment'. I compare Pfizer's treatment given in advance of illness with MSB's given in severe illness.
The deepest point I'm trying to convey in this long post could be summed up IMO by senior editor of the BMJ Peter Doshi's simple speech below. Not only the words, but how shattered he looks and sounds. He speaks about what "everybody knows" and asks if it's the truth. He says "everybody knows" Covid vaccines saved lives but at the time that was penned by public health officials there had been ONE death across the 70 000 Pfizer and Moderna participants. Even later on, Doshi shows that there were similar numbers in the placebo and treatment groups. He's not saying he knows what the vaccines can or can't do but that those who say the trials showed they saved lives are wrong. He's saddened by the lack of critical thinking and not reading beyond the abstract. He refers to the UK data which contradict the pandemic of the unvaccinated and asks if this were a pandemic of the unvaccinated, why the boosters? Doshi was critical of the trials from the start, saying the PE should be the reduction of severe disease.
MSB's trials have meaningful endpoints in terms of what people want. The Covid vaccine RCTs, however, didn't measure the three main effects you'd want in a vaccine: a lesser risk of transmission, infection and severe disease leading to hospitalisation. For those effects, the "investigational vaccine" (as per the EUA document) from Pfizer was exclusively tested on the Israeli population with the introduction of the Green Pass. Israeli people could "choose" to remain in their choir or attend their place of worship. The Green Pass is now revoked at 2 doses. A 3rd dose was rolled out to ages 12+ in the absence of any RCT showing safety or efficacy. Now Israel's Covid Csar is talking about a 4th and the UK is bringing the 3rd dose forward to 3 months.
Are there data from a RCT for a 3rd dose? I can only find a press release and a study in Israel lasting 2 months.
Reaction after mRNA vaccines is said to be stronger after the 2nd dose. Could it be stronger again after a 3rd?
What is the effect of mRNA vaccines on CD4 and CD8? Is Pfizer collecting data on this or just antibodies?
What happens with repeat dosing with the same S protein sequence? Horndler et al's study casts doubt on the value of this.
Could the immunocompromised generate variants of concern because the vaccine works less well in them?
Some of such questions MSB would be required to answer (They know effect of cells on CD8) but not Pfizer because its product is a vaccine and in this world right now all vaccines are presented as exactly the same; everyone has the same risk/benefit regardless of age, immune status, diet and lifestyle.
MSB trials its product on challenging patients. They know it's safe to combine with other meds. They know effects are durable. Pfizer, however, cherry-picked healthy participants and was "surprised" to find low antibody titers in real-world recipients who had undergone organ transplants. Prof Vinay Prasad said the PE for a 3rd dose should therefore be the prevention of severe disease and he wouldn't be happy with observational studies:
"Randomize or keep quiet".
My daughter is on immune suppressants and will likely be advised to take 4 doses. I talked to a physician online who says she advises her immunocompromised patients to take the 3rd dose. I asked what data from RCTs she had for safety and efficacy in this population. I didn't hear back and I knew I wouldn't. In this fake world people say stuff when they don't even know if it's true or not.
MSB products have been trialled and used in the EAP for a long time. Their whole cells don't have off target effects. They don't boost the things you don't want them to such as cancer or viruses. After Covid vaccination, menstrual irregularities have been reported globally (even post menopause) including in the BMJ. Is Pfizer's product safe for reproductive health? Is it safe for use in pregnancy? Pfizer is recruiting trials right now to determine this (links below) at the same time its product is being pushed onto every man, woman and child.
Those who support vaccinations would agree it's important to overcome vaccine hesitancy. Not ONCE have I come across in mainstream media any suggestion that the responsibility lies with Pfizer and others to design and run RCTs that didn't have flaws obvious in the beginning to anyone with a degree of common sense. Apart from the wrong PE, there were the "suspected covid" cases that appeared only in the FDA report on Pfizer's; 699 of these weren't even tested.
The Hart group (link below) is one of many examples that critical thinking among physicians and scientists is alive and well. They explain why the omission of testing could introduce confounding bias and ask how you can ignore what happens in the first weeks after your dose is given. If mRNA products, being qualitatively different were seen as drugs, as Doshi and other academics say, then such a practice would not be allowed in a RCT. The products are marketed as vaccines, however, therefore this has been allowed. Consequently, there's been difficulty in interpreting real-world data because some hospitals classify a patient as unvaccinated until 14 days after the 2nd dose.
The trials weren't properly blinded (Google images of "Moderna arm"); the protocols for Pfizer and Moderna stipulated an investigator could use clinical judgement to test or not the first 7 days after the dose, but there was nothing to say what happened beyond that period.
The BMJ has published an article (link below) on testimony of a whistleblower alleging misconduct, including unblinding and data falsification in pfizer's Covid trials. There's always the concern of falling for a fake whistleblower, which means any criticism is 'debunked' by association (Gorski's dismantling of a "dumpster fire of a study" comes to mind. This truly bad study has been withdrawn. The work of two Australian GPs, however, is so solid it has never been formally refuted) Re. Pfizer's RCTs, I doubt if the BMJ would publish such shocking accusations lightly. Steve Kirsch said in the FDA ADCOM it's statistically impossible to have protocol violations 5 times higher in the treatment group.
As the vaccines were being trialled, I read excited comments in scientific media that we would finally have widespread access to this technology. It's unfortunate IMO that its introduction to world is in the hands of Pfizer who paid the biggest fine for medical fraud over Bextra, an even bigger scumbag than Merck (who should be on trial for violation of the Nuremberg Code.) How unfortunate that Pfizer has showcased this tech as a vaccine in such overwhelming cr@pness (5-11 trial didn't even measure efficacy), conducted science by press release for boosters, sent some arrogant tosser along to the FDA ADCOM, an employee any CEO should be embarrassed by, and even asked for 55 years to release its safety data, all abetted by the FDA.
Peter Doshi and other scientists and academics have been pushing for data transparency. Doshi says that's what under the hood of Pfizer is not science but business and marketing. It's a triumph of the latter IMO. Put out a product that doesn't work that well as a vaccine (Why else a 3rd dose after mere months?) and the CDC (who stopped tracking breakthrough cases at the end of April) and your aggressive marketing machine can blame any failure on those who haven't taken it. High rates of Covid in highly vaccinated countries such as Gibralta (100%), Ireland (90%), Singapore, Belgium and the temporal association with the vaccine roll out and the increase of variants of concern, flagged by viral immunologist and computational biologist Dr Jessica Rose, are never a sign your product doesn't work as promised; people just need to take more of it. Politicians and public health officials will say things about your product you never actually said (You're on record as saying you didn't know. Your RCTs are on your website. All safety studies are clearly not there, just as you said). But in less than a year your product has become a symbol of status, something that will literally open doors.
A gift from the pharma god
Apparently better even than natural immunity, despite studies showing natural immunity to SARS-2 is superior (Israeli, Cleveland, Fred Hutch and over100 others), despite clinical evidence from those who recovered from SARS-1 having immunity lasting 17 years shown by CD8 levels, despite the CDC admitting (link below) that not a shred of evidence exists that the naturally immune can get and transmit the virus. Anyone, such as Harvard professor of medicine and biostatistician Martin Kulldorff, who says it's "unscientific" to deny natural immunity or suggests that in the interest of patients, you'd want the clinician with the most robust immunity in ICU, is excommunicated for heresy.
Award-winning former NYT journalist Alex Berenson is taking down the pharma god and its high priest Fauci. Fauci has been helpful in that regard by declaring himself the living embodiment of science. For those who missed the clues heaped up with a spade, Joe Rogan spells it out: When you have science that can't be questioned, you don't have science but something else entirely. Since my last post, The Real Anthony Fauci has become the #1 Amazon bestseller. I haven't read it but the leading review states he turned the NIH into an incubator for the pharmaceutical industry. There's a long section on Remdesivir also. In interviews, Fauci comes across as rather bland to me but may serve a purpose. Take what's fundamentally wrong with this era: corruption, hubris, scientism and heinous disregard for human life, embody them in Fauci and do a demolition job.
We're talking about going back to "normal" but we've been trained to see a substandard situation as normal for a long time. I've been writing about it for a long time. I've given examples of specific techniques used to train us.Berenson is driving a powerful counter narrative. The interview he did on Spotify with Joe Rogan would have sent massive traffic to his site. He's never said the vaccines don't work. He concedes that they may well protect against a severe outcome within a limited window but he and other popular writers on substack are highly critical of the focus on vaccines only as the strategy to overcome the pandemic. Instead of repeatedly dosing a healthy population, perhaps it might be better to focus on therapies for those who actually get sick enough to need hospital treatment? Antivirals play a role but they should be given early and my concern is that there will be delay in getting to hospital. Merck's Molnupavir looks less appealing now it has reported absolute risk reduction (3%) rather than relative risk reduction (Something that pfizer and other Covid vaccine providers should take note of.)
The revolution going on is global and affects not only medicine. This is much bigger than the FDA. The hope I have is that whatever authority is giving MSB a hard time appears genuine in its desire to create a high bar and a consistent product. With the move to vaccinating young children I believe there could be an urgent need for Remestemcel-l, the reasons for which I'll set out in my next post.
All IMO. GLTAH.
https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/how-democracy-endshttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161Xhttps://www.bitchute.com/video/CTO58IESTyq9/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.12.21261952v1https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04748172?term=pfizer&cond=ovarian&cntry=IL&draw=2&rank=2
https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04754594?term=NCT04754594&draw=2&rank=1https://www.hartgroup.org/it-gets-worse-before-it-gets-better/https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/cdc-admits-crushing-rights-of-naturally
(20min delay)
