And this is one of the reasons that, as a physician, I no longer trust anything put out by the CDC or the FDA. I first questioned when they denied natural immunity was effective and still pushed vaccination, especially in young healthy adults. Then they approve the vaccine for kids based only on the fact that they produced similar antibody response to what was considered protective in young adults. The disease was so mild in healthy children there was never a need to vaccinate, and despite many countries no longer recommending it, our incompetent and corrupt agencies continue to recommend for kids. Including boosters. With no longterm safety data.
You suggest Pfizer had a 100 billion reasons to do better studies. Some might argue they had 100 billion reasons to NOT do the studies. After all, RCTs showing a smaller effect (or even a net harm in some populations) may have made it harder to push and mandate these interventions the way they were.
It’s nice to see Vinay slowly realize how widespread the fraud/corrruption is/are. There seems to be a growing level of indignation in his writing that (I am guessing) reflects his anger at being initially tricked into being a supporter of the “miracle” and “genius” MRNA jabs.
I am confused. I am not in the medical field, but I thought that papers that were published in such journals as the NEJM were peer reviewed. I thought that the peer reviewed process would weed out these errors of using bad methods and confounding bias so that these papers would have to be corrected before publishing. Have I misunderstood the peer review process?
As Marcia Angell, ex-editor-in-chief of the NEJM, wrote in a book and several op-eds, this «prestigious» journal has lost its credibility decades ago, having sold (litterally) its soul to the devil: Big Pharma and its sidekick Academia (not all, but most). Several ex-editors-in-chief from the similarly fallen Lancet and to a lesser degree BMJ have made the same diagnosis. This being said, and not that I think that it is the case here, Freddie Sayers from UnHerd did an interview during the pandemic with a dutch or danish (I forgot) MD PhD who studied the broader effects of modified live vaccines (MLV) for children (e.g. MMR) compared to killed vaccines in Ghana and her country. She observed that MLVs were often associated with a decreased overall (i.e. not only from the targeted disease) mortality, while killed vaccines did just the opposite for overall mortality. There is a MLV against SARS-CoV-2 which in hamsters has performed better than mRNA vaccines on all levels (Nature Microbiology 2023). Coming soon for humans or will we keep putting all our energy in what I believe is another nice but overhyped technology?
Terrific comments Vinay. You really do need to mail an autographed copy of this paper you have co-authored to Steve Kirsch, a guy with zero training in medicine or epidemiology who is driving himself literally batty trying to get the attention -- any attention -- of the orthodox scientific community to Please listen to his braying about the "killer vaccines". It's pitiful.
I think there are probably many of us that are re-evaluating our level of confidence in previous vaccine data and wondering if we have misled our patients about risk /benefit decisions for influenza, varicella, mar, etc . Would you consider applying your analytical skills to the data on some of our older vaccines ? Best wishes
Has Annals gone down the same road? I'm fearful it has seeing as how the ACP's national leaders are slapped silly with critical theory (race, queer, gender, etc.) rather than being concerned with my ability as an internist to diagnose and treat disease.
And this is one of the reasons that, as a physician, I no longer trust anything put out by the CDC or the FDA. I first questioned when they denied natural immunity was effective and still pushed vaccination, especially in young healthy adults. Then they approve the vaccine for kids based only on the fact that they produced similar antibody response to what was considered protective in young adults. The disease was so mild in healthy children there was never a need to vaccinate, and despite many countries no longer recommending it, our incompetent and corrupt agencies continue to recommend for kids. Including boosters. With no longterm safety data.
You suggest Pfizer had a 100 billion reasons to do better studies. Some might argue they had 100 billion reasons to NOT do the studies. After all, RCTs showing a smaller effect (or even a net harm in some populations) may have made it harder to push and mandate these interventions the way they were.
It’s nice to see Vinay slowly realize how widespread the fraud/corrruption is/are. There seems to be a growing level of indignation in his writing that (I am guessing) reflects his anger at being initially tricked into being a supporter of the “miracle” and “genius” MRNA jabs.
Vinay, you live in a world where this is true yet your employer still mandates vaccines.
When will those persecuted by the mandates, physically, socially, and emotionally, be compensated? When will we get an apology?
I am confused. I am not in the medical field, but I thought that papers that were published in such journals as the NEJM were peer reviewed. I thought that the peer reviewed process would weed out these errors of using bad methods and confounding bias so that these papers would have to be corrected before publishing. Have I misunderstood the peer review process?
As Marcia Angell, ex-editor-in-chief of the NEJM, wrote in a book and several op-eds, this «prestigious» journal has lost its credibility decades ago, having sold (litterally) its soul to the devil: Big Pharma and its sidekick Academia (not all, but most). Several ex-editors-in-chief from the similarly fallen Lancet and to a lesser degree BMJ have made the same diagnosis. This being said, and not that I think that it is the case here, Freddie Sayers from UnHerd did an interview during the pandemic with a dutch or danish (I forgot) MD PhD who studied the broader effects of modified live vaccines (MLV) for children (e.g. MMR) compared to killed vaccines in Ghana and her country. She observed that MLVs were often associated with a decreased overall (i.e. not only from the targeted disease) mortality, while killed vaccines did just the opposite for overall mortality. There is a MLV against SARS-CoV-2 which in hamsters has performed better than mRNA vaccines on all levels (Nature Microbiology 2023). Coming soon for humans or will we keep putting all our energy in what I believe is another nice but overhyped technology?
Terrific comments Vinay. You really do need to mail an autographed copy of this paper you have co-authored to Steve Kirsch, a guy with zero training in medicine or epidemiology who is driving himself literally batty trying to get the attention -- any attention -- of the orthodox scientific community to Please listen to his braying about the "killer vaccines". It's pitiful.
Thanks Vinay
I think there are probably many of us that are re-evaluating our level of confidence in previous vaccine data and wondering if we have misled our patients about risk /benefit decisions for influenza, varicella, mar, etc . Would you consider applying your analytical skills to the data on some of our older vaccines ? Best wishes
Has Annals gone down the same road? I'm fearful it has seeing as how the ACP's national leaders are slapped silly with critical theory (race, queer, gender, etc.) rather than being concerned with my ability as an internist to diagnose and treat disease.
Vinay, please tell me you’ve seen this 😂
https://youtu.be/PhAGPQE0H-U
Assholes