This is another example of something I have commented here before. As you say, the literature is plagued with flawed studies that have "escaped" the reviewers (or are they complicit?) in order to report false favorable results for these "vaccines". Even when the results are obviously unfavorable, the authors find a way to twist their findings and at the end always conclude that "these vaccines are beneficial". I have lost my respect for "peer-reviewed journals".
If not for you Dr.M and others like Dr. Nass and Mercola - we would not know - people just trust their doctors and of course, those of us who are subscribers know already NOT TO TRUST them. Interesting that my daughter, who was pregnant during the jab rollout says In her baby group her child is the only one with no developmental issues - and she wonders if the moms were vaxed. It was certainly pushed during her pregnancy but not by her OB/GYN who told her NOT to get it. He went against the narrative.
Thanks Peter and CD team. I've kinda had it - despite the plethora of findings/papers and more I still can't seem to "prove" to this one particular person in my life that the jabs are in fact a bad thing for most of the population (as he is on his 4th and his wife 5th) literally with all I have shown him over the past 2 yrs he negates. His "go to" line to whatever I show him - is "and yet the best scientists around the world still recommend it and boosters." I've recently just showed him the 56 second Fauci clip saying that vaccines "if done correctly" take 12 yrs. to which he replied "I guess the same could be said for any medicine within its 15 yr infancy, maybe more." - Perhaps it is the stubborn Leo in me - but man, I'd love to have a ROCK solid "somethings or other" to provide him with. Alas, I doubt anything could help this person see what I, and so many see. The denialism is strong with this one!!! Something in me just can't let it go! Blessings.
Thankfully, if there is one thing this clowndemic has helped with, it has made us unwilling to accept "industry research" anymore. "Safe and effective", like "safe and secure" (elections), is such a contemptible claim, that it is absolutely THE tell, the way you know you are hearing a steaming pile of clever 'advertising' (advertising: The art of selling a stinker as an air freshener.)
'Clinically proven' is another notice to turn around and go somewhere else for help.
Lots of interesting info that is not generally public, but if you want to see the ‘risk/benefit’ impact portion of this, go to page 111. You’ll see that there is no safety data for pregnancy, use with other vaccines, immunocompromised, etc.
I thought the original trials (done by pharma companies) of COVID shots were double blinded placebo controlled trials, and they showed a large benefit in terms of less COVID hospitalizations and deaths. Am I wrong about that?
Or is it that the original trials and all the others did not fulfill every qualification in your sentence:
"There has never been any randomized, prospective, double-blind placebo controlled trial of COVID-19 vaccines in any group demonstrating clinical benefit defined as reductions in hospitalization and death."
So maybe the original pharma trials were not randomized or prospective? Help me understand this please. Thanks.
Second question: Is the method you described for testing - that is randomized, prospective, and doubled blinded controlled trials the current standard for the way new drugs and treatments are tested? And if that is not the case, should that be the method used?
One thing I've learned is that new vaccines are never tested against a true placebo, and have not been for a long time. Fauci told RFK Jr. that they were tested against true placebos. RFK then asked Fauci for those trials. Fauci never gave him any and eventually admitted in private there were none. Wow.
Thanks. I went to page 111. Yes, it is interesting that this Nov.2022 report identifies Myocarditis and Pericarditis as an identified risk, but under the risk benefit impact there really is nothing of note. No way here to evaluate the risk/benefit impact for that adverse effect. I do know the feds had to lower the standards for the heart health of airline pilots because too many of them could not longer pass the old standard. Now was that due to COVID or the shots, or maybe both? I see COVID getting the blame for everything from the establishment , and adverse effects of the shots ignored or minimized.
It's also interesting that the Big Ten Cardiac Registry apparently stopped looking closely at the heart health of students athletes who got COIVD after only 1 year - 2020. I can't find anybody while will answer any questions about that program or why it ended. I also read that COVID causes less heart problems than the shots.
Another interesting thing on page 111 is the use in pregnancy. According to this document even by Nov. 2022 there were no safety studies on pregnant women completed, while the government has been saying to pregnant women it's perfectly safe for a long time now.
I going to post something else first today until I read the OUTSTANDING substack of Dr. Ana Mihalcea today, also highly recommended by Karen Kingston titled…
THERE IS NO NANOTECHNOLOGY IN THE NANOTECHNOLOGICAL C19 SHOTS? THAT IS NOT LOGICAL!
Ana has hit the ball out of the park on this one!
P.S. Am done with any flawed anything as Americans are NOT standing tall yet IN UNITY to do anything that matters! Aren’t ALL our enemies, a small number compared to The People unified on every Treasonous front against us? Gloves should be off long ago!
All I really know is that people are getting cancer, all of them who got the shot. Two got "routine" scans and yup, they had cancer, no pain, but cancer, one in his head and one in her lungs. The rest all had symptoms, lumps, pain, bowel trouble... etc. Five deaths in my little circle so far.
Thanking Dr Peter is an endless job.... what a guy!
This is another example of something I have commented here before. As you say, the literature is plagued with flawed studies that have "escaped" the reviewers (or are they complicit?) in order to report false favorable results for these "vaccines". Even when the results are obviously unfavorable, the authors find a way to twist their findings and at the end always conclude that "these vaccines are beneficial". I have lost my respect for "peer-reviewed journals".
Mr. McCullough
Don't stop calling out the truth. Be bold. Be loud.
If not for you Dr.M and others like Dr. Nass and Mercola - we would not know - people just trust their doctors and of course, those of us who are subscribers know already NOT TO TRUST them. Interesting that my daughter, who was pregnant during the jab rollout says In her baby group her child is the only one with no developmental issues - and she wonders if the moms were vaxed. It was certainly pushed during her pregnancy but not by her OB/GYN who told her NOT to get it. He went against the narrative.
Thanks Peter and CD team. I've kinda had it - despite the plethora of findings/papers and more I still can't seem to "prove" to this one particular person in my life that the jabs are in fact a bad thing for most of the population (as he is on his 4th and his wife 5th) literally with all I have shown him over the past 2 yrs he negates. His "go to" line to whatever I show him - is "and yet the best scientists around the world still recommend it and boosters." I've recently just showed him the 56 second Fauci clip saying that vaccines "if done correctly" take 12 yrs. to which he replied "I guess the same could be said for any medicine within its 15 yr infancy, maybe more." - Perhaps it is the stubborn Leo in me - but man, I'd love to have a ROCK solid "somethings or other" to provide him with. Alas, I doubt anything could help this person see what I, and so many see. The denialism is strong with this one!!! Something in me just can't let it go! Blessings.
Nailed it. No superfluous, respectful, deferential language in this piece. You. Nailed. It.
With Partners like GSK and Pfizer what can you expect from CIRN ...
https://cirnetwork.ca/about-us/partners/
Thankfully, if there is one thing this clowndemic has helped with, it has made us unwilling to accept "industry research" anymore. "Safe and effective", like "safe and secure" (elections), is such a contemptible claim, that it is absolutely THE tell, the way you know you are hearing a steaming pile of clever 'advertising' (advertising: The art of selling a stinker as an air freshener.)
'Clinically proven' is another notice to turn around and go somewhere else for help.
All you need to do is read the 205 page Pfizer document here: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/rmp-summary/comirnaty-epar-risk-management-plan_en.pdf
Lots of interesting info that is not generally public, but if you want to see the ‘risk/benefit’ impact portion of this, go to page 111. You’ll see that there is no safety data for pregnancy, use with other vaccines, immunocompromised, etc.
I thought the original trials (done by pharma companies) of COVID shots were double blinded placebo controlled trials, and they showed a large benefit in terms of less COVID hospitalizations and deaths. Am I wrong about that?
Or is it that the original trials and all the others did not fulfill every qualification in your sentence:
"There has never been any randomized, prospective, double-blind placebo controlled trial of COVID-19 vaccines in any group demonstrating clinical benefit defined as reductions in hospitalization and death."
So maybe the original pharma trials were not randomized or prospective? Help me understand this please. Thanks.
Second question: Is the method you described for testing - that is randomized, prospective, and doubled blinded controlled trials the current standard for the way new drugs and treatments are tested? And if that is not the case, should that be the method used?
One thing I've learned is that new vaccines are never tested against a true placebo, and have not been for a long time. Fauci told RFK Jr. that they were tested against true placebos. RFK then asked Fauci for those trials. Fauci never gave him any and eventually admitted in private there were none. Wow.
Thanks. I went to page 111. Yes, it is interesting that this Nov.2022 report identifies Myocarditis and Pericarditis as an identified risk, but under the risk benefit impact there really is nothing of note. No way here to evaluate the risk/benefit impact for that adverse effect. I do know the feds had to lower the standards for the heart health of airline pilots because too many of them could not longer pass the old standard. Now was that due to COVID or the shots, or maybe both? I see COVID getting the blame for everything from the establishment , and adverse effects of the shots ignored or minimized.
It's also interesting that the Big Ten Cardiac Registry apparently stopped looking closely at the heart health of students athletes who got COIVD after only 1 year - 2020. I can't find anybody while will answer any questions about that program or why it ended. I also read that COVID causes less heart problems than the shots.
Another interesting thing on page 111 is the use in pregnancy. According to this document even by Nov. 2022 there were no safety studies on pregnant women completed, while the government has been saying to pregnant women it's perfectly safe for a long time now.
I going to post something else first today until I read the OUTSTANDING substack of Dr. Ana Mihalcea today, also highly recommended by Karen Kingston titled…
THERE IS NO NANOTECHNOLOGY IN THE NANOTECHNOLOGICAL C19 SHOTS? THAT IS NOT LOGICAL!
Ana has hit the ball out of the park on this one!
P.S. Am done with any flawed anything as Americans are NOT standing tall yet IN UNITY to do anything that matters! Aren’t ALL our enemies, a small number compared to The People unified on every Treasonous front against us? Gloves should be off long ago!
All I really know is that people are getting cancer, all of them who got the shot. Two got "routine" scans and yup, they had cancer, no pain, but cancer, one in his head and one in her lungs. The rest all had symptoms, lumps, pain, bowel trouble... etc. Five deaths in my little circle so far.
Thanking Dr Peter is an endless job.... what a guy!
It just gets worse.
If these Experimental injections are given prior to the 21st week, the Baby dies 85% of the time by Spontaneous Abortion.