The faculty should be fired, but they won’t. Claudine Gay still has a $900k/year teaching job. Harvard has no accountability and needs to be rebuilt from scratch.
We might be able to save the so-called scientific papers, but we will have expose all of the fraud of 2020-2024 and punish every author and editor who participated in the fraud. At a minimum the fraud should be listed on every paper past and present by every author and editor in perpetuity. Fraud is more important to list than conflicts of interest, although both are important and related. We also need have scientific journals funded through a tax on big Pharma that is allocated by a committee composed entirely of people who exposed the scandemic, opposed the vaccines and promoted protocols using vitamins and relatively safe repurposed drugs (remdesivir was designated as dangerous when it was first used against Ebola).
This makes me so sad, but so does the reaction from a few of the medical scientists with whom I have discussed the issue. They are quick to defend and give a pass to the senior/first authors, saying so much of the work is done in labs of collaborators and it is impossibly complicated to verify those results. It's as if they all are in on this massive scam. I am a physician and I have conducted clinical research and it never crossed my mind for a millisecond to falsify data. I would rather languish at my current academic rank for the rest of my career that build something out of lies. How are we going to ever have patients trust us again? :(
I know. Sigh. I tried so hard to tell people that. I am embarrassed at how the medical community behaved. Thank god for people like Vinay or I would have completely lost hope.
God bless you for your integrity. FLCCC is another group of doctors and healthcare providers also exposing the corruption of the past 3 years. There has been longstanding corruption in the medical field but the last 3 years was done at such a global level and is outright criminal especially the suppression of early outpatient treatments at the onset of 2020 . The current system has failed us . We cannot go back . Covid really helped expose the inadequacies.
the good thing is that maybe there are enough of you to set up small alternative systems that those of us with brains can patronize. the best thing is to avoid medicine but sometimes you do need medical help.
If you’re gonna sign your name to a paper, you better be ready to take the accountability for the paper - all due diligence. There is no defending the indefensible. Fire them all starting with the Board, raze the campus. It is a blight on academia.
If this is happening at Harvard, I believe it’s very reasonable to suspect that Pfizer and Moderna conspired to create false data to support the “safe and effective” narrative. And simultaneously, that the Big Pharma/academic/NGO/FDA/CDC/NIH complex conspired to manipulate data that impugnes the efficacy of ivermectin in enough studies to bias the meta analysis. We now know that if the incentives are great enough ($100+ bn in jab sales) that we should presume corruption.
The Pfizer/Moderna data is basically fine. The major issue was the quick cut-off of the observation period (~6 weeks) followed by "ethical" crossover of the placebo patients, eliminating the control group.
The vaxxes worked wonderfully well for a period of a few weeks starting 2 weeks after the second dose. That isn't of clinical relevance to most people. Running the trial out to a year would have seen efficacy declining towards zero, whether because of limited vaccine effect, viral mutations, or whatever.
If I were a real cynic, I'd say the failure to perform the primary analysis to (m)ITT principles was great trolling. That focused a lot of critical attention (mine included) on something that turned out not to have made much difference to the outcome.
They only appeared to work wonderfully well due to the statistical fraud that was committed in counting those vaccinated as unvaccinated for the first few weeks if they became sick with covid or were injured from the shots. Norman Fenton covered this statistical trick well over a year ago.
yes the data was cooked, It never showed any effectiveness and the FDA was in on the fraud.. Pfizer hid two deaths in the vaccinated group even though they were notified of the deaths within hours until after they got the EUA approval. If those two deaths had been included then the numbers would have shown zero benefit for the vaccine and those two deaths were both cardiac deaths. This just goes to show that figures do not lie but liars figure. Pfizer and FDA etc are all liars.
The vast majority of Pfzzle’s trial data was based on shots produced using a different manufacturing process to those it sold post-trial and were consumed by millions; the mRNA (and some DNA actually in some instances) in the injections that average Jo citizen had, involved E. Coli in their manufacturing process but not so, the vast majority of those in the trials (PCR was used instead). How can the data be okay with this in mind?
Also, only a very small number of trial sites were audited (despite pfzzle having been convicted of dishonesty offences in the past)... which doesn’t automatically mean the data’s bad but how can anyone be reasonably sure?
And add to that the research suggesting that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection is significantly enhanced within the first week or two of receiving an mRNA vaccination. And then the Cleveland data on ongoing risk (which is mirrored by the government data here in NZ).
The you get journals like Nature publishing papers on transmission by vax status, and it's only when you look at the supp section that you find their definition of vax status. Read these very carefully and then try and convince me that science isn't broken:
"a Unvaccinated includes individuals with partial vaccination.
b Fully vaccinated includes unvaccinated individuals with previous infection."
I feel like I have been in a loving relationship with science for decades, but have only recently discovered that I have been cheated on repeatedly. I have major trust issues now.
No, this isn't actually true. It could have been, and the primary analysis should have been conducted on an ITT basis for this reason (meaning counting all infections discovered after the decision to treat the patient had been taken, not from last shot + 2 weeks). However, there was almost no difference in the number of infections recorded in this period.
The "fraud" is in the fact that loss of efficacy starts quite soon after the end of the few weeks of observation, the vaccine is only effective for a short period of time.
I have concerns over the methodology. It appears Pharma understood that the optimal observation period was 2 weeks after second jab until ~45 days out, and therefore they only observed that period. If you only observe that period, and ignore SAEs before and after, you come up with “safe and effective.”
It’s hard for me to agree with “working marvelously” when the same jabs caused an historic amount of damage from the time period between first jab and 14 days post second, and, apparently after 6-8 weeks until (potentially) the death of those injected. This methodology is the poster child for cherry picking.
And we still don’t have clarity on whether or not those SAEs after first jab were classified as occurring in the placebo group or just ignored. How is this acceptable and how can anyone conclude these are safe enough to be distributed to billions? I don’t think we presume “innocent/safe” in drug trials?
Despite all of this, the thing that most raises my suspicions is the continual lack of transparency from government and pharma. Why was Maddie de Garay not appropriately classified and cared for? Why haven’t new studies been conducted about efficacy between jabbed and unjabbed? Where’s the data on those populations multi-years in? Where’s the federal investigation of the explosion in VAERS safety signals? There are many legitimate questions being asked by credentialed investigators and the authorities are not being forthcoming. This implies either massive corruption or unfathomable incompetence.
AEs are counted from day one and assigned by group. It's the efficacy events (infections) occurring before the start of the observation period, and more importantly not looking at (or becoming unable to, because of crossover) events happening after a very short observation period.
None of the real, and orders of magnitude more common than most vaccines - safety concerns are sufficiently frequent to turn up in even a large clinical trial. They do become apparent when you inject hundreds of millions to billions of people though.
You neglect to mention that MANY deaths occurred during the cut off period from commencement of jab to two weeks after. WHAT COMPETENT TRIAL WOULD NOT REPORT DEATHS FOR THE FIRST TWO WEEKS AFTER JAB WHEN THE NUMBERS WERE SO BIG??? The word F. R. A. U. D. !!!!! Comes to mind!!!!
With respect, you know nothing about the conduct of clinical trials.
All deaths reported during the trial were recorded.
Those happening outside the observation period for efficacy are not events for the efficacy analysis. You will see them in the safety analysis though.
We can argue about whether they should be considered efficacy events.
I would argue a full (m)ITT approach, counting every event from randomization, should have been followed.
Pfizer and others (and I have had to write arguments for this practice in the day job) advocate not counting events before vaccination is "complete".
There are pros and cons to both approaches. Perhaps the cleanest thing to do is to do both and present both, with equal weight.
But deaths in a trial being "covered up"? No, not even Pfizer does that.
In any case, the issue with the efficacy is not the relatively low number of "nonemergent" per trial definition efficacy events, but the very short overall observation period.
If this trial had been run out to 1 year, you would have seen efficacy trending towards zero over time. Maybe because the body doesn't care to keep defences up against a low-impact pathogen, maybe because the virus evolves. Either way, the product is not effective for very long. Pfizer timed it perfectly.
I’m sorry but the Pfizer papers ordered to be released by the courts clearly state deaths from day 1 to 14 after the jab were Not included in the data.
You can defend the biggest genocidists in history, called Pfizer, all you like, but their paper work gives them away. They knowingly released a killer jab on an unsuspecting humanity. This can never be forgotten and the fact that this jab us still being pushed should also be an indictable offence!!!!
No one is concentrating on “efficacy” it was practically ZERO and definitely did NOT weigh up against the harm it caused and continues to cause.
Many are already dead and many more have lost the quality of life. What the discussion is about is fraudulent paperwork and coverups resulting in numerous deaths. Efficacy does not even rate against the deaths and harm caused. It beggars belief that in 2024 anyone could say
“Pfizer timed it perfectly”!!!
If this was a whodunnit, the title
THE PERFECT MASS MURDER
comes to mind!!!!
It is unbelievable that you could state
“Those (deaths) happening outside the observation period for efficacy are not events for the efficacy analysis.”
Try telling the family of the dead people that because your loved one died on say fir instance day 10 -
“sorry but it’s of no consequence because they died outside the window of efficacy”
Trials have been pulled because of one death!! Pfizer was reckless and should be held accountable. So should anyone who is still trying to make excuses - especially if that excuse starts with……..
“With respect, you know nothing about the conduct of clinical trials.”
That statement is designed to bully and intimidate people into silence.
I’m sorry but with 4 dead loved ones, 4 university degrees and the ability to read the released Pfizer papers, you will not bully me into silence!!!!
VIV if I had been your lecturer at Uni this is what I would have commented on your term paper….
Dear VIV,
I wanted to take a moment to discuss the recent comment you posted regarding vaccine safety. While I appreciate your dedication to scientific rigor and your commitment to analyzing data objectively, I noticed a lack of empathy and sensitivity in your approach.
It's crucial to remember that behind every statistic or clinical trial outcome, there are real people with real experiences and emotions. When discussing sensitive topics like vaccine safety, it's essential to acknowledge and address the concerns and experiences of individuals who may have lost loved ones or experienced adverse effects.
Additionally, I noticed that some of the language used in your comment could be perceived as condescending or overly technical, which may obfuscate the message for some readers. It's important to communicate in a way that is clear and accessible to everyone, regardless of their level of scientific understanding.
Developing empathy and effective communication skills is just as important as scientific expertise in our field. I encourage you to consider how your words and actions may impact others and strive to approach discussions with empathy, understanding, and humility.
Let's work together to foster an environment of open dialogue and mutual respect, where everyone's perspectives and experiences are valued.
Pfizer timed the _end of the observation window_ perfectly. Something which if you could read as well as you claim, you would have understood from my first post. The vaccine is wonderfully _effective_ for about 6 weeks. Even considering the other problems with this trial (self-report, likely ineffective blinding given placebo control), there is no force on earth that could have produced by fraud a "90% effective" result. The efficacy, for the duration of observation, is unimpeachable.
The right question to be asking is "do we think a vaccine that works for 6 weeks is a useful vaccine?" My answer to that question is "absolutely not!" In combination with the poor safety profile (something we see in the postmarketing data, but not really in the trial data, even a 40,000-participant trial being too small to see much safety-wise, especially when you don't yet know what you are looking for), this is a product with very limited relevance to a very limited number of people, and should never have had the rapid and especially coerced/enforced roll-out it did. That was an expression of the pharma marketing/government complex, and the fact that globally everyone was whipped up into an almost murderous frenzy against "the unvaccinated". It's got nothing to do with which parts of the trial design were good and which not so good.
Data is, for every day values of "never", never made up in clinical trials, it is not systematically assigned to the wrong group. There are much more subtle and effective ways to gerrymander the result you want, and they have the distinct advantage that you don't go to prison when you got caught doing them.
To illustrate, one bogus claim here is that events prior to 2 weeks after second dose were "assigned" to the placebo group. This is in no way true for the trial data.
It is true, and this is perhaps what is confusing you, for _real world_ data, which in many places was indeed handled in this way, at times with the intent to mislead.
Perhaps the most egregious example is Germany, where data on hospitalizations with Covid were released, on a weekly basis, and by region, always showing that around 80% of hospitalizations with indication of Covid were "unvaccinated".
This was during 2022, by when everyone who wanted vaccination had it. The fraud being that anyone with unknown or unrecorded vaccine status was considered "unvaccinated". Germany does not have a central record of vaccination, so most patients did not have their vaccination status recorded at the time of hospitalization. Instead of analysing data by three groups (vaccinated, unvaccinated, and unknown) all of the people with unknown vaccinated status were analysed as unvaccinated, falsely inflating the "unvaccinated"population and thus proportion of hospitalizations.
This outright fraud, for the purposes of propaganda and justifying the Apartheid-style discrimination we (yes me included) unvaccinated had to live under in those dark times, was perpetrated not by Pfizer but by the government.
The FOIA court order to the FDA covers (almost entirely) postmarketing adverse event experience, this again has nothing to do with the clinical trial. I don't think you are grasping the difference between the trial and real world data, I will say yet again that the trial data raise few safety concerns, but the real world data raise many legitimate safety concerns.
I am sure Pfizer are very happy with the "result", how long they strung it out, and how little scrutiny they will get. I think the idea of releasing all the pharmacovigilance reports (the court order) is actually top-notch trolling. No one can read all of that and it will strongly discourage patients from making AE reports in future, because their information (even in "redacted" form) will henceforth be available to the whole world. Whether they can sleep well at night is another matter. On a personal note, I used to have a _very_ lucrative sideline delivering CME for Pfizer. This came to an abrupt end after an oncologist in the audience asked my views, right at the end of my presentation, on the design of the vaccine trial and I answered honestly.
In short, if you were my university lecturer I'd have a good case for a refund. Science is not a safe space. Science is a blood sport.
The only thing required to produce the 90% efficacy was to drop the Absolute Risk Reduction and use the previously viewed as unethical, FDA disapproved, and misleading Relative Risk Reduction, which is exactly what they did. The ARR was less than 1%. Not fraud, exactly, but definitely manipulative nonsense. So, no the written data on efficacy was impeachable. Hell, it should be indictable.
if the data had been fine, the FDA wouldn't have requested that it be hidden for 75 years. thanks to the tireless efforts of Aaron Siri, funded by ICAN, and sound decisions made by good judges, that data is coming out and being analyzed by independent scientists.
i don't think they worked wonderfully well at all. there were death spikes after every roll out. from now on, anyone who dies of anything, i'm blaming it on the vaccine until definitively proven otherwise.
"died suddenly," "cause unknown," "complications from a medical emergency" and the latest i saw yesterday in the obituary of a 61 year old woman- "possibly natural causes" are all code for vaccine deaths.
Stop mixing up clinical trial data with real-life experience, and stop mixing up safety data with efficacy data. The vaccine could be effective in some people and kill some other people. Most drugs actually do both!
None of the safety concerns established (in my mind as well as yours) from real-world experience, the entire cardiac/thrombotic/vascular issues (which I suspect are baked into the mechanism of action of any mRNA product, from expressing foreign antigen at uncontrollable levels in the endothelium) are sufficiently widespread to have been noticed in even a large trial (pace methods of obfuscation such as the multiple redundancy of MedDRA). They are, however, frequent enough to be noticed once you administer to hundreds of millions.
The only reason this doesn't result in the product being taken off the market (both for a poor - for a vaccine - safety record, and for the very limited duration of efficacy - both of which are conclusions we can draw based on REAL WORLD data, not from the clinical trial) is that many many politicians and their regulatory agency lapdogs have an awful lot to lose from admitting they were wrong.
And while it sometimes happens that you are wrong about the risk/benefit ratio of a drug, it is a whole other level of wrong to have imposed the lockdown BS and coercive vaccination on everyone.
What about Prof. Mandeep Mehra of Harvard who co-authored the fraudulent paper on HCQ in the Lancet in 2020 to shut down the WHO trial of HCQ for treating Covid?
The paper was retracted later for using clearly fraudulent data, but the WHO trial of HCQ never resumed. So the paper's purpose of killing HCQ as a potential Covid treatment was still achieved.
Shame on the journal "The Lancet" as well. The journal editors also participated in this fraud knowingly and willfully.
For some reason, most people seem to have forgotten about that fraud which probably caused thousands of avoidable deaths by blocking early Covid treatments (not just HCQ but potentially other early treatments as well).
I have 100+ refereed papers. I personally pored over every line, graph, image, and chart in every one of them. I was prepared to defend every word/picture; I knew where the source materials were and was always prepared to produce them. This idea that "it's all too big and complex and how could anyone have known" is the biggest pile of BS I have heard -- exactly what one hears about the clearly corrupt covid trials where the numbers looked good for 60 days, but only if you excluded the first two weeks...and then after the 60 days also went to hell. Those people, too, say "we couldn't have known". This is all both a grift and a lie. Any competent lab chief would be all over this -- fraudulent data used to be the instant death knell of any academic. My vote: Lose your job and, if bad enough, lose your license. These kinds of frauds KILL people...doesn't anyone care anymore? (The government's covid management/response disaster says "no", but hope springs eternal.)
What happened to, “I’m the Captain of this vessel and I am responsible for its successes and failures.”? The whole idea that one is the leader of an institution, group, corporation, or team and yet are not accountable for that entity’s shortcomings, runs counter to the whole concept of leadership. Authority, responsibility, and accountability are the 3 pillars of leadership in a hierarchical structure.
But nobody seems interested in addressing the deeper problem with the entire ecosystem of scientific research. Such as the non-repeatability crisis. And the fact that researchers have zero incentive to repeat anything.
In medicine, I tend to find that personal experience and anecdotal experience are more reliable than all the manipulated and false research out there.
Incompetence at best, outright fraud at worst. The initial report from Sholto is long, comprehensive, jaw-dropping, and well worth reading. Considering this is affiliated with Harvard, I’m unsurprised with their recent wagon circling to protect former President Claudine Gay’s gross plagiarism.
After a long career as an honest scientist, I came to realize that the more prominent and well-funded the PI, the more dishonest the body of work coming from the PI's lab. These serial fraudsters must be shut down.
Harvard is prestigious but it is a private organization. Our taxes pay for the $11 billion given to the 55,000 CDC employees who have padded the BMI numbers with horrendous consequences. Take this on.
The morally bankrupt should not be held as an example to our youth ( or anyone, for that matter) and further, certainly shouldn’t be teaching them. Get rid of them! They should not have a job to go back to!
No FDA approval for any medical technology: pharmaceutical or mechanical for those academics for 10 years and all future experiments are to be reviewed by 3rd party and paid for from the PI’s budget.
Submitting fraudulent data in cancer medicine studies should be considered a criminal offense.
In any area of healthcare.
cancer is a racket, just like all of medicine
The faculty should be fired, but they won’t. Claudine Gay still has a $900k/year teaching job. Harvard has no accountability and needs to be rebuilt from scratch.
A fish rots from the head, in this case the Harvard Corporation board: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-get-into-harvard-gay-bobo-corporation
Its already rotten. There is no saving it Harvard has ruined its reputation
All so called scientific journals as well as universities are rotten. There is no way to save them...
We might be able to save the so-called scientific papers, but we will have expose all of the fraud of 2020-2024 and punish every author and editor who participated in the fraud. At a minimum the fraud should be listed on every paper past and present by every author and editor in perpetuity. Fraud is more important to list than conflicts of interest, although both are important and related. We also need have scientific journals funded through a tax on big Pharma that is allocated by a committee composed entirely of people who exposed the scandemic, opposed the vaccines and promoted protocols using vitamins and relatively safe repurposed drugs (remdesivir was designated as dangerous when it was first used against Ebola).
This makes me so sad, but so does the reaction from a few of the medical scientists with whom I have discussed the issue. They are quick to defend and give a pass to the senior/first authors, saying so much of the work is done in labs of collaborators and it is impossibly complicated to verify those results. It's as if they all are in on this massive scam. I am a physician and I have conducted clinical research and it never crossed my mind for a millisecond to falsify data. I would rather languish at my current academic rank for the rest of my career that build something out of lies. How are we going to ever have patients trust us again? :(
The whole Covid response in the medical world was based upon lies. Your whole industry is no longer trusted.
I know. Sigh. I tried so hard to tell people that. I am embarrassed at how the medical community behaved. Thank god for people like Vinay or I would have completely lost hope.
God bless you for your integrity. FLCCC is another group of doctors and healthcare providers also exposing the corruption of the past 3 years. There has been longstanding corruption in the medical field but the last 3 years was done at such a global level and is outright criminal especially the suppression of early outpatient treatments at the onset of 2020 . The current system has failed us . We cannot go back . Covid really helped expose the inadequacies.
the good thing is that maybe there are enough of you to set up small alternative systems that those of us with brains can patronize. the best thing is to avoid medicine but sometimes you do need medical help.
Brave physician to speak out! I’m sure your patients appreciate you ability to think for yourself!
If you’re gonna sign your name to a paper, you better be ready to take the accountability for the paper - all due diligence. There is no defending the indefensible. Fire them all starting with the Board, raze the campus. It is a blight on academia.
If this is happening at Harvard, I believe it’s very reasonable to suspect that Pfizer and Moderna conspired to create false data to support the “safe and effective” narrative. And simultaneously, that the Big Pharma/academic/NGO/FDA/CDC/NIH complex conspired to manipulate data that impugnes the efficacy of ivermectin in enough studies to bias the meta analysis. We now know that if the incentives are great enough ($100+ bn in jab sales) that we should presume corruption.
The Pfizer/Moderna data is basically fine. The major issue was the quick cut-off of the observation period (~6 weeks) followed by "ethical" crossover of the placebo patients, eliminating the control group.
The vaxxes worked wonderfully well for a period of a few weeks starting 2 weeks after the second dose. That isn't of clinical relevance to most people. Running the trial out to a year would have seen efficacy declining towards zero, whether because of limited vaccine effect, viral mutations, or whatever.
If I were a real cynic, I'd say the failure to perform the primary analysis to (m)ITT principles was great trolling. That focused a lot of critical attention (mine included) on something that turned out not to have made much difference to the outcome.
They only appeared to work wonderfully well due to the statistical fraud that was committed in counting those vaccinated as unvaccinated for the first few weeks if they became sick with covid or were injured from the shots. Norman Fenton covered this statistical trick well over a year ago.
yes the data was cooked, It never showed any effectiveness and the FDA was in on the fraud.. Pfizer hid two deaths in the vaccinated group even though they were notified of the deaths within hours until after they got the EUA approval. If those two deaths had been included then the numbers would have shown zero benefit for the vaccine and those two deaths were both cardiac deaths. This just goes to show that figures do not lie but liars figure. Pfizer and FDA etc are all liars.
The vast majority of Pfzzle’s trial data was based on shots produced using a different manufacturing process to those it sold post-trial and were consumed by millions; the mRNA (and some DNA actually in some instances) in the injections that average Jo citizen had, involved E. Coli in their manufacturing process but not so, the vast majority of those in the trials (PCR was used instead). How can the data be okay with this in mind?
Also, only a very small number of trial sites were audited (despite pfzzle having been convicted of dishonesty offences in the past)... which doesn’t automatically mean the data’s bad but how can anyone be reasonably sure?
And add to that the research suggesting that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection is significantly enhanced within the first week or two of receiving an mRNA vaccination. And then the Cleveland data on ongoing risk (which is mirrored by the government data here in NZ).
The you get journals like Nature publishing papers on transmission by vax status, and it's only when you look at the supp section that you find their definition of vax status. Read these very carefully and then try and convince me that science isn't broken:
"a Unvaccinated includes individuals with partial vaccination.
b Fully vaccinated includes unvaccinated individuals with previous infection."
I feel like I have been in a loving relationship with science for decades, but have only recently discovered that I have been cheated on repeatedly. I have major trust issues now.
If you don’t want the responsibility for garbage research you shouldn’t receive any credit for good research done by the juniors.
No, this isn't actually true. It could have been, and the primary analysis should have been conducted on an ITT basis for this reason (meaning counting all infections discovered after the decision to treat the patient had been taken, not from last shot + 2 weeks). However, there was almost no difference in the number of infections recorded in this period.
The "fraud" is in the fact that loss of efficacy starts quite soon after the end of the few weeks of observation, the vaccine is only effective for a short period of time.
At the risk of piling on...
I have concerns over the methodology. It appears Pharma understood that the optimal observation period was 2 weeks after second jab until ~45 days out, and therefore they only observed that period. If you only observe that period, and ignore SAEs before and after, you come up with “safe and effective.”
It’s hard for me to agree with “working marvelously” when the same jabs caused an historic amount of damage from the time period between first jab and 14 days post second, and, apparently after 6-8 weeks until (potentially) the death of those injected. This methodology is the poster child for cherry picking.
And we still don’t have clarity on whether or not those SAEs after first jab were classified as occurring in the placebo group or just ignored. How is this acceptable and how can anyone conclude these are safe enough to be distributed to billions? I don’t think we presume “innocent/safe” in drug trials?
Despite all of this, the thing that most raises my suspicions is the continual lack of transparency from government and pharma. Why was Maddie de Garay not appropriately classified and cared for? Why haven’t new studies been conducted about efficacy between jabbed and unjabbed? Where’s the data on those populations multi-years in? Where’s the federal investigation of the explosion in VAERS safety signals? There are many legitimate questions being asked by credentialed investigators and the authorities are not being forthcoming. This implies either massive corruption or unfathomable incompetence.
It’s both - massive corruption and unfathomable incompetence!!!
AEs are counted from day one and assigned by group. It's the efficacy events (infections) occurring before the start of the observation period, and more importantly not looking at (or becoming unable to, because of crossover) events happening after a very short observation period.
None of the real, and orders of magnitude more common than most vaccines - safety concerns are sufficiently frequent to turn up in even a large clinical trial. They do become apparent when you inject hundreds of millions to billions of people though.
You neglect to mention that MANY deaths occurred during the cut off period from commencement of jab to two weeks after. WHAT COMPETENT TRIAL WOULD NOT REPORT DEATHS FOR THE FIRST TWO WEEKS AFTER JAB WHEN THE NUMBERS WERE SO BIG??? The word F. R. A. U. D. !!!!! Comes to mind!!!!
With respect, you know nothing about the conduct of clinical trials.
All deaths reported during the trial were recorded.
Those happening outside the observation period for efficacy are not events for the efficacy analysis. You will see them in the safety analysis though.
We can argue about whether they should be considered efficacy events.
I would argue a full (m)ITT approach, counting every event from randomization, should have been followed.
Pfizer and others (and I have had to write arguments for this practice in the day job) advocate not counting events before vaccination is "complete".
There are pros and cons to both approaches. Perhaps the cleanest thing to do is to do both and present both, with equal weight.
But deaths in a trial being "covered up"? No, not even Pfizer does that.
In any case, the issue with the efficacy is not the relatively low number of "nonemergent" per trial definition efficacy events, but the very short overall observation period.
If this trial had been run out to 1 year, you would have seen efficacy trending towards zero over time. Maybe because the body doesn't care to keep defences up against a low-impact pathogen, maybe because the virus evolves. Either way, the product is not effective for very long. Pfizer timed it perfectly.
I’m sorry but the Pfizer papers ordered to be released by the courts clearly state deaths from day 1 to 14 after the jab were Not included in the data.
You can defend the biggest genocidists in history, called Pfizer, all you like, but their paper work gives them away. They knowingly released a killer jab on an unsuspecting humanity. This can never be forgotten and the fact that this jab us still being pushed should also be an indictable offence!!!!
No one is concentrating on “efficacy” it was practically ZERO and definitely did NOT weigh up against the harm it caused and continues to cause.
Many are already dead and many more have lost the quality of life. What the discussion is about is fraudulent paperwork and coverups resulting in numerous deaths. Efficacy does not even rate against the deaths and harm caused. It beggars belief that in 2024 anyone could say
“Pfizer timed it perfectly”!!!
If this was a whodunnit, the title
THE PERFECT MASS MURDER
comes to mind!!!!
It is unbelievable that you could state
“Those (deaths) happening outside the observation period for efficacy are not events for the efficacy analysis.”
Try telling the family of the dead people that because your loved one died on say fir instance day 10 -
“sorry but it’s of no consequence because they died outside the window of efficacy”
Trials have been pulled because of one death!! Pfizer was reckless and should be held accountable. So should anyone who is still trying to make excuses - especially if that excuse starts with……..
“With respect, you know nothing about the conduct of clinical trials.”
That statement is designed to bully and intimidate people into silence.
I’m sorry but with 4 dead loved ones, 4 university degrees and the ability to read the released Pfizer papers, you will not bully me into silence!!!!
VIV if I had been your lecturer at Uni this is what I would have commented on your term paper….
Dear VIV,
I wanted to take a moment to discuss the recent comment you posted regarding vaccine safety. While I appreciate your dedication to scientific rigor and your commitment to analyzing data objectively, I noticed a lack of empathy and sensitivity in your approach.
It's crucial to remember that behind every statistic or clinical trial outcome, there are real people with real experiences and emotions. When discussing sensitive topics like vaccine safety, it's essential to acknowledge and address the concerns and experiences of individuals who may have lost loved ones or experienced adverse effects.
Additionally, I noticed that some of the language used in your comment could be perceived as condescending or overly technical, which may obfuscate the message for some readers. It's important to communicate in a way that is clear and accessible to everyone, regardless of their level of scientific understanding.
Developing empathy and effective communication skills is just as important as scientific expertise in our field. I encourage you to consider how your words and actions may impact others and strive to approach discussions with empathy, understanding, and humility.
Let's work together to foster an environment of open dialogue and mutual respect, where everyone's perspectives and experiences are valued.
Best regards,
Pfizer timed the _end of the observation window_ perfectly. Something which if you could read as well as you claim, you would have understood from my first post. The vaccine is wonderfully _effective_ for about 6 weeks. Even considering the other problems with this trial (self-report, likely ineffective blinding given placebo control), there is no force on earth that could have produced by fraud a "90% effective" result. The efficacy, for the duration of observation, is unimpeachable.
The right question to be asking is "do we think a vaccine that works for 6 weeks is a useful vaccine?" My answer to that question is "absolutely not!" In combination with the poor safety profile (something we see in the postmarketing data, but not really in the trial data, even a 40,000-participant trial being too small to see much safety-wise, especially when you don't yet know what you are looking for), this is a product with very limited relevance to a very limited number of people, and should never have had the rapid and especially coerced/enforced roll-out it did. That was an expression of the pharma marketing/government complex, and the fact that globally everyone was whipped up into an almost murderous frenzy against "the unvaccinated". It's got nothing to do with which parts of the trial design were good and which not so good.
Data is, for every day values of "never", never made up in clinical trials, it is not systematically assigned to the wrong group. There are much more subtle and effective ways to gerrymander the result you want, and they have the distinct advantage that you don't go to prison when you got caught doing them.
To illustrate, one bogus claim here is that events prior to 2 weeks after second dose were "assigned" to the placebo group. This is in no way true for the trial data.
It is true, and this is perhaps what is confusing you, for _real world_ data, which in many places was indeed handled in this way, at times with the intent to mislead.
Perhaps the most egregious example is Germany, where data on hospitalizations with Covid were released, on a weekly basis, and by region, always showing that around 80% of hospitalizations with indication of Covid were "unvaccinated".
This was during 2022, by when everyone who wanted vaccination had it. The fraud being that anyone with unknown or unrecorded vaccine status was considered "unvaccinated". Germany does not have a central record of vaccination, so most patients did not have their vaccination status recorded at the time of hospitalization. Instead of analysing data by three groups (vaccinated, unvaccinated, and unknown) all of the people with unknown vaccinated status were analysed as unvaccinated, falsely inflating the "unvaccinated"population and thus proportion of hospitalizations.
This outright fraud, for the purposes of propaganda and justifying the Apartheid-style discrimination we (yes me included) unvaccinated had to live under in those dark times, was perpetrated not by Pfizer but by the government.
The FOIA court order to the FDA covers (almost entirely) postmarketing adverse event experience, this again has nothing to do with the clinical trial. I don't think you are grasping the difference between the trial and real world data, I will say yet again that the trial data raise few safety concerns, but the real world data raise many legitimate safety concerns.
I am sure Pfizer are very happy with the "result", how long they strung it out, and how little scrutiny they will get. I think the idea of releasing all the pharmacovigilance reports (the court order) is actually top-notch trolling. No one can read all of that and it will strongly discourage patients from making AE reports in future, because their information (even in "redacted" form) will henceforth be available to the whole world. Whether they can sleep well at night is another matter. On a personal note, I used to have a _very_ lucrative sideline delivering CME for Pfizer. This came to an abrupt end after an oncologist in the audience asked my views, right at the end of my presentation, on the design of the vaccine trial and I answered honestly.
In short, if you were my university lecturer I'd have a good case for a refund. Science is not a safe space. Science is a blood sport.
The only thing required to produce the 90% efficacy was to drop the Absolute Risk Reduction and use the previously viewed as unethical, FDA disapproved, and misleading Relative Risk Reduction, which is exactly what they did. The ARR was less than 1%. Not fraud, exactly, but definitely manipulative nonsense. So, no the written data on efficacy was impeachable. Hell, it should be indictable.
if the data had been fine, the FDA wouldn't have requested that it be hidden for 75 years. thanks to the tireless efforts of Aaron Siri, funded by ICAN, and sound decisions made by good judges, that data is coming out and being analyzed by independent scientists.
i don't think they worked wonderfully well at all. there were death spikes after every roll out. from now on, anyone who dies of anything, i'm blaming it on the vaccine until definitively proven otherwise.
"died suddenly," "cause unknown," "complications from a medical emergency" and the latest i saw yesterday in the obituary of a 61 year old woman- "possibly natural causes" are all code for vaccine deaths.
Stop mixing up clinical trial data with real-life experience, and stop mixing up safety data with efficacy data. The vaccine could be effective in some people and kill some other people. Most drugs actually do both!
None of the safety concerns established (in my mind as well as yours) from real-world experience, the entire cardiac/thrombotic/vascular issues (which I suspect are baked into the mechanism of action of any mRNA product, from expressing foreign antigen at uncontrollable levels in the endothelium) are sufficiently widespread to have been noticed in even a large trial (pace methods of obfuscation such as the multiple redundancy of MedDRA). They are, however, frequent enough to be noticed once you administer to hundreds of millions.
The only reason this doesn't result in the product being taken off the market (both for a poor - for a vaccine - safety record, and for the very limited duration of efficacy - both of which are conclusions we can draw based on REAL WORLD data, not from the clinical trial) is that many many politicians and their regulatory agency lapdogs have an awful lot to lose from admitting they were wrong.
And while it sometimes happens that you are wrong about the risk/benefit ratio of a drug, it is a whole other level of wrong to have imposed the lockdown BS and coercive vaccination on everyone.
Jessica Rose laid out some of the issues with Pfizer and Western Blots: https://jessicar.substack.com/p/a-follow-up-about-western-blots
Harvard did a fine job completely discrediting itself to anyone with a brain.
What about Prof. Mandeep Mehra of Harvard who co-authored the fraudulent paper on HCQ in the Lancet in 2020 to shut down the WHO trial of HCQ for treating Covid?
The paper was retracted later for using clearly fraudulent data, but the WHO trial of HCQ never resumed. So the paper's purpose of killing HCQ as a potential Covid treatment was still achieved.
Shame on those doctors taking bribes to publish fraudulent studies to block early treatments.
Shame on the journal "The Lancet" as well. The journal editors also participated in this fraud knowingly and willfully.
For some reason, most people seem to have forgotten about that fraud which probably caused thousands of avoidable deaths by blocking early Covid treatments (not just HCQ but potentially other early treatments as well).
I have 100+ refereed papers. I personally pored over every line, graph, image, and chart in every one of them. I was prepared to defend every word/picture; I knew where the source materials were and was always prepared to produce them. This idea that "it's all too big and complex and how could anyone have known" is the biggest pile of BS I have heard -- exactly what one hears about the clearly corrupt covid trials where the numbers looked good for 60 days, but only if you excluded the first two weeks...and then after the 60 days also went to hell. Those people, too, say "we couldn't have known". This is all both a grift and a lie. Any competent lab chief would be all over this -- fraudulent data used to be the instant death knell of any academic. My vote: Lose your job and, if bad enough, lose your license. These kinds of frauds KILL people...doesn't anyone care anymore? (The government's covid management/response disaster says "no", but hope springs eternal.)
What happened to, “I’m the Captain of this vessel and I am responsible for its successes and failures.”? The whole idea that one is the leader of an institution, group, corporation, or team and yet are not accountable for that entity’s shortcomings, runs counter to the whole concept of leadership. Authority, responsibility, and accountability are the 3 pillars of leadership in a hierarchical structure.
According to Prof John Ioannidis of Stanford, most published research findings are false, fraud or not.
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
But nobody seems interested in addressing the deeper problem with the entire ecosystem of scientific research. Such as the non-repeatability crisis. And the fact that researchers have zero incentive to repeat anything.
In medicine, I tend to find that personal experience and anecdotal experience are more reliable than all the manipulated and false research out there.
Incompetence at best, outright fraud at worst. The initial report from Sholto is long, comprehensive, jaw-dropping, and well worth reading. Considering this is affiliated with Harvard, I’m unsurprised with their recent wagon circling to protect former President Claudine Gay’s gross plagiarism.
After a long career as an honest scientist, I came to realize that the more prominent and well-funded the PI, the more dishonest the body of work coming from the PI's lab. These serial fraudsters must be shut down.
Harvard is prestigious but it is a private organization. Our taxes pay for the $11 billion given to the 55,000 CDC employees who have padded the BMI numbers with horrendous consequences. Take this on.
What's new?
"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"
John P. A. Ioannidis
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
So called science has always been for sale to the highest bidder.
Covid-19 scamdemic of rebranded flu just exposed the last layer of scientism, corruption and scientific fraud. There is no going back...
Anyone with > 1 should be canned. If they have medical licenses they should be revoked.
The morally bankrupt should not be held as an example to our youth ( or anyone, for that matter) and further, certainly shouldn’t be teaching them. Get rid of them! They should not have a job to go back to!
No FDA approval for any medical technology: pharmaceutical or mechanical for those academics for 10 years and all future experiments are to be reviewed by 3rd party and paid for from the PI’s budget.