I am reliably told that it is in fact the unvaccinated, not the vaccines, that lead to increased rates of mutation and variability.
I am uncertain as to what mechanism causes these evolutionary pressures in a normal, unaltered host immune system, but I do know that the unvaccinated are bad, so it is logical that they would incubate bad things in the manner of a witch's third nipple nursing a homunculus.
This leads me to a complete loss to explain the above discussion, so I am choosing to ignore it, out of an abundance of caution.
Snark aside, I think your hypothesis is very strong, but I was extremely suspicious of the testing protocols during the vaccine trials from the very beginning- mainly because I witnessed how obviously misapplied and massaged PCR was post-vaccine rollout as local public health authorities scrambled to show efficacy.
You sort of trailed off in the middle about the symptom reporting monkeyshines. Do I understand correctly that the trick that was used was to break out minor differences in symptoms ("sneezing" vs "wheezing") so as to create very small counts in individual categories (e.g. >0.1%) that could be procedurally dropped, thereby lowering the gross count?
You didn't explicitly explain that part, but that's a common ploy on the street.
Throughout this whole mess, jokes are about the only thing that has kept many of us (relatively) sane. If you cannot laugh at something, it gains increasing power over you.
Another path to the same conclusion is that legally, none of the pharma companies was ever required by FDA or any other regulatory agency to conduct valid clinical trials or produce valid clinical data.
Instead, the statutory framework for medical countermeasures, security countermeasures, pandemic products, epidemic products and Emergency Use Authorization products, requires no valid safety data, and only an HHS secretary declaration that a product “may be effective.” That simple statement by HHS secretary is enough to authorize procurement contracts, bulk manufacturing, distribution and mass injection.
If Pfizer and Moderna and the other contractors were never required to do valid clinical trials, they didn't do valid clinical trials.
21 USC 360bbb-3(c)(2)(A), added to FDCA in 1997, amended in 2004, means that there are no federally-required safety or efficacy standards for EUA products. The only requirement for "efficacy" claims, is that the HHS Secretary make a declaration that a product "may be effective." That declaration is to be "based on the totality of scientific evidence available to the Secretary, including data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, if available."
But if no such data is available because it's a declared emergency and there's no time, the declaration that it "may be effective" can be made anyway.
21 USC 355g, added to FDCA in 2016, authorizes use of 'real world evidence’ for FDA regulatory decisions. This means products can legally be manufactured and then mass administered to general public, and safety and efficacy data only collected afterward (privately, not publicly) from health insurance systems, government databases including Medicare, Medicaid, Defense Medical Epidemiology Database, Veterans Health Administration.
21 USC 360bbb-3a(c), added to FDCA in 2013, holds that there are no required standards for quality-control in manufacturing; no inspections of manufacturing procedures; no prohibition on wide variability among lots; no prohibition on adulteration; and no required compliance with Current Good Manufacturing Practices. EUA products, even though unregulated and non-standardized, “shall not be deemed adulterated or misbranded.”
21 USC 360bbb-3(e)(2)(B)(ii), added to FDCA in 2004, holds that there are no labeling requirements regarding the contents or ingredients in EUA products.
authorized DOD to contract with pharmaceutical corporations to conduct ‘prototype’ experiments on the general public, and under such contracts, exempted them from legal obligation to comply with Good Clinical Practices or other FDA regulations.
42 USC 247d-6b (c)(5)(B)(iii), added to PHSA in 2004, holds that one of the factors to be considered by HHS secretary in making determinations about EUA products (qualified security countermeasures) and use of Special Reserve Fund/Strategic National Stockpile appropriations to procure them is "whether there is a lack of a significant commercial market for the product at the time of procurement, other than as a security countermeasure."
I started to piece the statutory timeline together between February and April, while reading up on Brook Jackson's false claims act case, and then Arkmedic and Jessica Rose started talking about the missing CRFs (case report forms, clinical record forms) in early May, which corroborated the conclusion: there were never valid clinical trials.
And Pfizer confirmed it in their April 22, 2022 Motion to Dismiss Jackson's case:
“Because of pandemic-related exigencies, the agreement was not a standard federal procurement contract, but rather a ‘prototype’ agreement executed pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 2371b[.]…The [contract’s Statement of Work] describes a ‘large scale vaccine manufacturing demonstration’ that imposes no requirements relating to Good Clinical Practices (‘GCP’) or related FDA regulations.”
We hoped that the missing steps for full validation wouldn't matter too much,and that we would receive, in return, an effective, safe-enough vaccine, but sadly, we did not.
Sadly, I expect that you're right. I don't think that anyone will be held accountable. There will certainly be some scapegoats that are thrown onto a sacrificial alter to try and appease the angry masses, but they will be some "order followers" who are considered expendable to the oligarchical cabal.
Yeah, I thought one of the routes out of this mess would be the TLA's declaring phraud and tossing pharma under the bus... but it's sounding like the legal culpability is going to be such a mess that they might decide to remain in bed together.
My trip (with my sick dog) to the veterinarian confirmed the PCR fraud.
In veterinary medicine, PCR is used to dismiss a targeted viruses as the cause of symptoms. Not to confirm it as the cause. If you test for the Bordetella virus, and the PCR shows negative, you look to other causes for the symptoms seen. If the PCR shows positive, it you assume nothing and keep looking. The PCR is understood as prone to false positives. Covid mandates though made the false positive problem exponentially worse.
Before Covid, the labs provided quantitative PCR. That is, they told the vet at what cycle threshold the test turned positive. The Vet could then use their judgement and experience in accessing the validity of the result. After Covid mandates, our government made it unlawful for labs to provide quantitative data and only allowed qualitative (True or False) results. The lab my vet used had a big disclaimer on their website apologizing for the change and asking customer for their understanding. This lab performed PCR tests for both humans and animals.
Thanks for going so deep I to this and to continue to find the truth. And thanks to Chris Masterjohn as well ...I am glad you two are known to one another and working together. We need truth seekers for sure. I keep thinking that being vax free...I am a valuable resource for blood donation and organ donation and research studies. I wouldn't put it past the researchers to vax me and not tell me! I won't be in any research studies because so much of this arm of science is evil.
Isn't it true that the trials tested all placebo cohorts but adjudicated who among the injected were tested? EDIT - [Furthermore, the protocol for testing the placebo group was 40 cycles but the tests for the injected were capped at 28 cycles.] this section of my comment was a projection/misatribution by me. The 28 CT was related to post injection breakthrough investigation - see below.
Oh, I forgot, the actually ignore all of the symptomatic injected for the 1st 2 weeks due to vaccine reactogenicity. And if they had used those data the actual trial evidence would be zero to negative efficiency.
IF general public guidance by the CDC had been only test symptomatic people and only use 28 Ct then there would not have been a pandemic. Just seasonal respiratory distress as was factually the case.
In reality testing for anything beyond 25 Ct is fraud. Even IF they had actually used an actual isolate of the alleged virus.
Do you have a link, section reference or article citation for the two different PCR cycles in the Pfizer trial? I have spent much time in those documents and never saw that gem which should be isolated and bookmarked as a critical piece of evidence. thanks :~)
This is not related to the trials. Matthew's explanation is accurate. The CDC requested ONLY breakthrough case investigation of PCR results in 28 or less.
Thanks so much for the follow up.. so rare for folks to return w promised info.. always bonus points from me for Wayback links to source documents! :~)
Hello smarty cats, would any of you, or Mathew, be so kind as to link your favorite post covering the change of definition of vaccine that took place in 2021? With wayback machine screenshots? I thought that was a RTE post, but search did not yield results. I know a great post was written on the topic. I'd like to link to it for my current article on vaccine exemptions, so that I don't spend time re-writing what has already been written brilliantly.
I know this sounds terrible, but I've collected a 5-digit number of pages of notes, and written a 4-digit amount, half of which is not even published yet! While I know I organized that info, I can't even recall if and where I put it. And I haven't had the time to go back and fully organize all my writing:
I have used Copernic (Windows) as a kind of desktop Google for years. It indexes files, and when you click on a search result, it gives you a file preview with the string you're looking for. It doesn't help you organize, but it does really help you search.
I just picked up a new book called "Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth" and an interesting claim in there is that placebo in RTC are often other vaccines and in the case were there is not a predecessor vaccine they will often remove the viral portion of the concoction and inject that. The one thing that is not used is something like saline.
Do we know what the placebo in these treatments actual was? Just strait up LNP without mRNA?
Matt, funny that you refer to a book called “Turtles All the Way Down”. I was discussing definitions, testing and standards on another substack. As an engineer trying to make sense of how biological testing works and trying (without success) to find a so called “gold standard” underlying the tests. Each time I thought i understood it, I kept finding the so called standard relied on another standard and so on and so forth. My actual comment was “It looks to me like it’s turtles all the way down.” Glad to see someone else has thought the same and written a book. Thanks for the reference, I’ll check it out.
I have read the reason they do it this way, is that a vaccine will produce a similar sting or other effect in the arm, whereas saline won't. And if a sting isn't produced, the control group might figure out they received the placebo. Hope I made sense.
I read somewhere they used meningitis vaccine in some of the trials but I could be wrong or confusing with something else.
The book claims it is proposed as a moral obligation to provide some sort of treatment (same argument for getting rid of the control arm of the covid trials). If your control arm of the trial on an existing vaccine is based on a previously approved vaccine, and you follow that line back to the first vaccine(s) approved, you find the original approvals came when we were not doing RCT if any safety trial at all.
The title of the book comes from this. Turtles all the way down.
In this case for the different covid vaccines what is the placebo? If for the mRNA platforms it is LNP that would hide (at least some) anaphylactic shock as an example. It gets counted as background rate if observed in the control of the study.
I got the double tap from Phizer, because I fell prey to the coercion centered on their not letting people attend to the dying, and 'you might never see your parents again.'
But that in getting the double tap, that makes it less likely testing for the virus works, so I am potentially putting my aging parents at risk thinking I am negative when I am not?
If that is true, and Phizer and the FDA know it to be true, and that so-called efficacy is just fake testing, then I am increasingly open to accountability that is Capital.
I was not allowed to see someone very dear to me dying in the hospital as were countless others. It was the absolute worst, egregious, words cannot describe my anger of this aspect.
Here is a poll that says 57% of American adults have faith the CDC can control the spread of monkeypox. I conclude from that, if that poll isn't totally gamed, that 57% of American adults are chickenshit idiots who would stand silent and supportive as their government perpetrated genocide against their fellow Americans.
"The COVID vaccines strongly reduce the chance of a positive PCR nasal swab among anyone suffering from COVID-like illness."
This is because vaccinated people are tested at a MUCH lower number of cycles. If you report that you are unvaccinated, they will top the cycles out UNTIL they find something, anything, which they will refer to as a covid virus.
Matthew, do you know how the PCR tests were calibrated? I recall reading at some point late in the game that they were calibrated to the common cold — I do know that the CDC posted a disclaimer that said in effect a positive test could not distinguish between SARS-CoV-2 and the common cold.
Yes, they stopped using the S protein as a target. I suspect this was due to the fact that they ran out of variants in the viral swarm for which they could use S-gene target failure for proxy identification.
It actually did happen and was well documented by an endless stream of doctors and scientists who were OUTRAGED at the level of fraud.
We are also outraged at the fraudulent order the CDC made for hospitals to falsely classify recently-vaccinated as "unvaccinated" whenever they showed up at the hospitals with vaccine injuries, IF they had only gotten their 1st jab, or it had been less than 14 days since their 2nd jab. OBVIOUSLY this was intended to hide the TRUTH about how badly the vaccines were affecting the public.
Go sell your pharma lies and shilling somewhere else. This is the wrong feed for pharma propagandists, OR for people who are too ignorant to know when THEY have been lied to. Enjoy your boosters. Nobody here is listening to the lies anymore.
Therein, you will see that the authors can absolutely back up what they are saying about the CDC's guidance with regard to the PCR test cycles. They saved the original PDF before the CDC was busted and scrubbed it from their site. The reason they wanted the lower cycles for vaccinated people was to cover the fact that vaccinated people were catching covid (what ever the hell it really is) at a higher rate that UNVACCINATED people.
Only people who were living under a rock, or the WILLFULLY ignorant did not see the evidence when this story first hit. The evidence is real, but people like you don't believe you are getting wet in the rain until your TV tells you it is raining.
But at this point, you appear to be a pharma shill, or else someone who just refuses to look at the truth. You certainly do not like people who know it and tell it.
"the PCR test produces 97% false positives to begin with"
We have to get these details right if we're going to wake people up.
The same PCR test can produce anywhere from 100-x to 100% false positives, where x is the specificity of the test. A blanket statement about false positives is the kind of misuse of statistics that is actually hurting our position. The false positive rate varies dramatically through populations and seasons. There is a more important underlying story, I suspect, which is that many false positives were due to the fact that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating before we were told it was, thus there were RNA fragments in people's systems. I think that the spike may have been intentionally designed to be longer lasting in terms of systemic breakdown, and for slower total viral clearance.
"But at this point, you appear to be a pharma shill, or else someone who just refuses to look at the truth."
Um. Wow. All I did was give up a 7-digit income to start educating people as best as possible.
Realize that I made that video to deter fear over positive testing way back in 2020.
Yes, the tests were a sham. But understand that the document that you linked to is a highly simplified argument designed for a court to understand. I'm trying to do my best to help people understand the base level because the more people who do, the more people will see the next layer of the Matrix onion in order to peel it back.
The court of public opinion is a little different than a court of law. I understand the difference. I was unaware you were currently in court fighting, and that this was your platform for that battle.
Spending a 7 digit income attempting to exonerate and make excuses for the CDC, FDA, and pharma (beyond the damage-control they are already conducting) by attempting to discredit anyone who says a foul word about them, seems a waste of money to me. And the only people I can think of who would pay anyone that sort of money to say anything at all, would be those who are part of the depopulation agenda. Who exactly hired to you hang around this platform selling the idea pharma is good, and anyone who says anything bad about them must be bad?
(1) First, I've been a paid subscriber to Mathew's Substack for quite a while. I do that because he is a hard-working analyst who publishes good analysis of many COVID-related topics, including his long-running series on hydroxychloroquine. For you to insinuate he is a Pharma shill only discredits you, not him.
(2) Second, I looked at your "READ this information" document. It was a mash-up of various opinions, including Berendson who has been wrong on several points (I quit following him after he accused Robert Malone of being an operative for the other side!). But if you ignore the opinions expressed there and look strictly at the facts reported, it shows that in fact your claim is wrong, as Mathew gently pointed out initially. The quoted CDC guidance did not affect PCR testing for the general public to tell if they are infected or not. Both vaccinated and unvaccinated are tested in the same way with the same cycle threshold. The CDC does complete sequencing on a minor fraction of the samples; their reduced cycle threshold instructions applied to that. Getting reliable sequences requires a reasonable starting concentration, the document says, and I have no reason to doubt that.
This isn't to say there aren't problems with PCR testing. But the problems aren't where you say they are.
I noticed you did not bother to go READ the actual PDF guidance on the PCR which the CDC scrubbed once everyone was on to them and in an uproar. Thankfully, someone saved it for us to READ. Apparently, you only trust pharma & Soros-funded fact checkers who do damage control for the extermination agenda so it can progress.
They have plenty to coverup, and if you think they are not busy doing so, well,...I have bridge you might be interested in buying. You go right on trusting their "science" and excuses. Only fools trust the CDC or the PCR tests. Good luck.
It's true that hospitals limited their PCR testing to 34 cycles (most was likely quantitative) and community qualitative PCR was cycled much higher, which will produce many more false positives.
Then there was the RAT boondoggle, which isn't worth discussing.
I also remember seeing the documentation about the differing test cycle rates back during the "pandemic of the unvaccinated" nonsense. However you are coming across as very aggressive...
I do still assert that their are foundational presumptions which are entirely false, and which are required to support the continued proliferation of the death jabs. And until we get to the facts, (confirm whether or not the foundational presumptions are even true) the entire farce will continue.
I also still assert that this is not the time to believe or support any of pharma's underlying lies, for which they have yet to provide any data to support. No matter how engrained any one of their old lies has become to all of us, we must stop and question it if we are to break the spell.
One foundational lie, is that poor health is not the cause of disease, but rather a lack of vaccines is what causes disease. Supporting the pharma lie that the cause of disease is whatever particle they tell us is causing it, (rather than our own poor health being the cause) will never get us anywhere.
I've often stated that the PCR tests are meaningless, and that "cases" just mean "positive test results". However, I hadn't considered that the vaxx could be effective at reducing the likelihood of a positive test result without also having any effect on the presence of any disease or symptoms. That revelation is quite eye-opening for me.
Very interesting considerations. If I understood correctly, the hypothesis is that vaxxed subjects in the trials may have been less likely to test +ve despite having the clinical symptoms of the disease, thus creating an illusion of efficacy. However, my previous (admittedly superficial) understanding was that a large enough number of subjects to swing the outcome/conclusion re efficacy had clinical symptoms but were not even tested (for reasons the reporting did not make clear). Am I wrong? If not wrong, how do these two issues intersect?
So in 2021 I understood the problem as articulated by Doshi et al that the trials were never designed to determine efficacy against severe illness or death, but rather efficacy against testing positive.
I learned the difference between the highly touted relative risk reduction and the actual miserable absolute risk reduction of the vaccines.
I read Crawford's explanation of how to define away safety signals, and subscribed to RTE to support his work.
I read Fenton's explanation of how the time-stamping of cumulative data can conjure efficacy something from efficacy nothing in the real-world rollout.
I learned about a lot of different ways of lying.
But I did assume that testing positive at an appropriate PCR cycle was an honest proxy for coronavirus infection: for the presence of the virus of interest, regardless of progress of the disease. Mullis said that PCR tests can find something from almost nothing, and that false positives were likely... But it did not occur to me to question the negatives.
Now it's 2022 and I've read Masterjohn's post about false negatives. So that's where the bodies are buried? The vaccines were efficacious against throwing a positive PCR during the clinical trial period, and then again at vaccine rollout in the real world?
"[Just a PCR (polymerase chain reaction test)-positive mild infection] with only mild symptoms qualify as meeting the primary endpoint definition. In Pfizer and Moderna’s trials, for example, people with only a cough and positive laboratory test would bring those trials one event closer to their completion."
“Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission."
There is another piece to the vaccine efficacy puzzle--false negatives. False negative rates for covid vaccines were very high when Hopkins published its review of studies of false negative rates from pcr. Hopkins found a minimum of 20% false negatives, which occurred when people were tested on the 3rd day after symptom onset. False negative rates INCREASED from 20% on the time curve in both directions.
So what are the implications for vaccine efficacy studies? False negatives, if undetected, result in higher efficacy. If detected, they decrease efficacy. How can false negatives be detected? With cell culturing. But that wasn't done in studies, so what can we do?
If we have certain data, we can estimate the false negative count in vaccine efficacy studies. We would need the rate at the time of the study and the number of tests conducted based on ILI (influenza-like illness) symptoms. Pfizer didn't reveal the number of tests yet, but possibly we will obtain that info in the future.
People should be discussing this issue. The study design was fraudulent for failing to discover false negatives with cell culturing and Pfizer was hiding the data on the count of the total number of tests.
To gauge the impact of false negatives, it would only take 20 false negatives in both placebo and vax arms to reduce vax efficacy to 50%. Considering 22,000 subjects in each arm, having 200 ILIs in winter in each arm would be very low.
Hi Matthew, I so appreciate the work you do. You are extremley intelligent. Thank you again for your rational approach. Somehow in all this scariness, I find the way you do your work, oddly, reassurring. I am a 60 year old trying to make sense of this crazy world. You and several others are a beacon of light to me. The hysteria of many who are reporting what is happening, ends of making people more frightened than they already are. It hurts their important message because people can only take in so much "fear-inducement". People do not realize that they should not be making it hard for people to make the changes needed in the world and acquiring the knowledge needed for what really happened with the pandemic ( and the last how many years now!), it overwhelms and makes people feel hopeless. They want to turn off and turn for hope (going toward God, which many of us do otherwise, but they really give up listening and reading much). You do not do this. If you know anyone else to follow, besides Kevin McCairn, Charles Rixey, Dr. Fleming let me know please. Also, where can I read material from Jon Couey?
I am reliably told that it is in fact the unvaccinated, not the vaccines, that lead to increased rates of mutation and variability.
I am uncertain as to what mechanism causes these evolutionary pressures in a normal, unaltered host immune system, but I do know that the unvaccinated are bad, so it is logical that they would incubate bad things in the manner of a witch's third nipple nursing a homunculus.
This leads me to a complete loss to explain the above discussion, so I am choosing to ignore it, out of an abundance of caution.
I'm not even sure what you said, but suddenly my intuition tells me that SARS-CoV-2 was always a witch's third nipple.
Snark aside, I think your hypothesis is very strong, but I was extremely suspicious of the testing protocols during the vaccine trials from the very beginning- mainly because I witnessed how obviously misapplied and massaged PCR was post-vaccine rollout as local public health authorities scrambled to show efficacy.
You sort of trailed off in the middle about the symptom reporting monkeyshines. Do I understand correctly that the trick that was used was to break out minor differences in symptoms ("sneezing" vs "wheezing") so as to create very small counts in individual categories (e.g. >0.1%) that could be procedurally dropped, thereby lowering the gross count?
You didn't explicitly explain that part, but that's a common ploy on the street.
"Do I understand correctly that the trick that was used"
Yes. And after I get some sleep, I may go back and clarify that in the writing. It's been an intense couple of weeks.
Symptom laundering, right Mathew? As deftly explained by Jessica Rose.
It's all good in the hood.
The problem with irony here is that for most people this is too emotional and complicated to make a joke about it.
It may be emotional and complicated for "most people" but that does not preclude making a joke about it, ever.
Throughout this whole mess, jokes are about the only thing that has kept many of us (relatively) sane. If you cannot laugh at something, it gains increasing power over you.
Indeed
I didn't mean to censor Your joke, only to comment on its understandability.
My language was deliberately so silly that I'm not at all concerned with the subset of people unable to understand it.
If that sounded logical or sincere to someone, I really don't care what's going on in their heads.
They're consuming too many 'logical fruitloops"
Reliably told by who? Please state your source/sources
None other than Dr. Anthony Fauci, the greatest public health officer of our time.
SERIOUSLY? The greatest CRIMINAL, MASS MURDERER of our time!
That sounds like Russian misinformation to me.
guttermouth is a good name, but i think you forgot the stupidity brain part
I love how you had to edit this because you completely unintelligibly misspelled the word "stupidity" the first time.
Come on, tough guy! Tell me what I did that was stupid already.
Another path to the same conclusion is that legally, none of the pharma companies was ever required by FDA or any other regulatory agency to conduct valid clinical trials or produce valid clinical data.
Instead, the statutory framework for medical countermeasures, security countermeasures, pandemic products, epidemic products and Emergency Use Authorization products, requires no valid safety data, and only an HHS secretary declaration that a product “may be effective.” That simple statement by HHS secretary is enough to authorize procurement contracts, bulk manufacturing, distribution and mass injection.
If Pfizer and Moderna and the other contractors were never required to do valid clinical trials, they didn't do valid clinical trials.
21 USC 360bbb-3(c)(2)(A), added to FDCA in 1997, amended in 2004, means that there are no federally-required safety or efficacy standards for EUA products. The only requirement for "efficacy" claims, is that the HHS Secretary make a declaration that a product "may be effective." That declaration is to be "based on the totality of scientific evidence available to the Secretary, including data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, if available."
But if no such data is available because it's a declared emergency and there's no time, the declaration that it "may be effective" can be made anyway.
21 USC 355g, added to FDCA in 2016, authorizes use of 'real world evidence’ for FDA regulatory decisions. This means products can legally be manufactured and then mass administered to general public, and safety and efficacy data only collected afterward (privately, not publicly) from health insurance systems, government databases including Medicare, Medicaid, Defense Medical Epidemiology Database, Veterans Health Administration.
21 USC 360bbb-3a(c), added to FDCA in 2013, holds that there are no required standards for quality-control in manufacturing; no inspections of manufacturing procedures; no prohibition on wide variability among lots; no prohibition on adulteration; and no required compliance with Current Good Manufacturing Practices. EUA products, even though unregulated and non-standardized, “shall not be deemed adulterated or misbranded.”
21 USC 360bbb-3(e)(2)(B)(ii), added to FDCA in 2004, holds that there are no labeling requirements regarding the contents or ingredients in EUA products.
10 USC 2371b, adopted 2015. renumbered 10 USC 4022 (Jan. 1, 2021, effective Jan. 1, 2022)
authorized DOD to contract with pharmaceutical corporations to conduct ‘prototype’ experiments on the general public, and under such contracts, exempted them from legal obligation to comply with Good Clinical Practices or other FDA regulations.
42 USC 247d-6b (c)(5)(B)(iii), added to PHSA in 2004, holds that one of the factors to be considered by HHS secretary in making determinations about EUA products (qualified security countermeasures) and use of Special Reserve Fund/Strategic National Stockpile appropriations to procure them is "whether there is a lack of a significant commercial market for the product at the time of procurement, other than as a security countermeasure."
I started to piece the statutory timeline together between February and April, while reading up on Brook Jackson's false claims act case, and then Arkmedic and Jessica Rose started talking about the missing CRFs (case report forms, clinical record forms) in early May, which corroborated the conclusion: there were never valid clinical trials.
It was all fabrication.
https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/faked-clinical-trials-and-real-world
And Pfizer confirmed it in their April 22, 2022 Motion to Dismiss Jackson's case:
“Because of pandemic-related exigencies, the agreement was not a standard federal procurement contract, but rather a ‘prototype’ agreement executed pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 2371b[.]…The [contract’s Statement of Work] describes a ‘large scale vaccine manufacturing demonstration’ that imposes no requirements relating to Good Clinical Practices (‘GCP’) or related FDA regulations.”
https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/pfizers-motion-to-dismiss-the-brook
https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/implications-of-10-usc-2371b-the
I think you're right.
We hoped that the missing steps for full validation wouldn't matter too much,and that we would receive, in return, an effective, safe-enough vaccine, but sadly, we did not.
"Legal" right or wrong is really about as valid as a PCR test.
Sadly, I expect that you're right. I don't think that anyone will be held accountable. There will certainly be some scapegoats that are thrown onto a sacrificial alter to try and appease the angry masses, but they will be some "order followers" who are considered expendable to the oligarchical cabal.
Yeah, I thought one of the routes out of this mess would be the TLA's declaring phraud and tossing pharma under the bus... but it's sounding like the legal culpability is going to be such a mess that they might decide to remain in bed together.
Cheaper to keep 'er.
My trip (with my sick dog) to the veterinarian confirmed the PCR fraud.
In veterinary medicine, PCR is used to dismiss a targeted viruses as the cause of symptoms. Not to confirm it as the cause. If you test for the Bordetella virus, and the PCR shows negative, you look to other causes for the symptoms seen. If the PCR shows positive, it you assume nothing and keep looking. The PCR is understood as prone to false positives. Covid mandates though made the false positive problem exponentially worse.
Before Covid, the labs provided quantitative PCR. That is, they told the vet at what cycle threshold the test turned positive. The Vet could then use their judgement and experience in accessing the validity of the result. After Covid mandates, our government made it unlawful for labs to provide quantitative data and only allowed qualitative (True or False) results. The lab my vet used had a big disclaimer on their website apologizing for the change and asking customer for their understanding. This lab performed PCR tests for both humans and animals.
Ah, this is helpful. Thanks.
Thanks for going so deep I to this and to continue to find the truth. And thanks to Chris Masterjohn as well ...I am glad you two are known to one another and working together. We need truth seekers for sure. I keep thinking that being vax free...I am a valuable resource for blood donation and organ donation and research studies. I wouldn't put it past the researchers to vax me and not tell me! I won't be in any research studies because so much of this arm of science is evil.
Isn't it true that the trials tested all placebo cohorts but adjudicated who among the injected were tested? EDIT - [Furthermore, the protocol for testing the placebo group was 40 cycles but the tests for the injected were capped at 28 cycles.] this section of my comment was a projection/misatribution by me. The 28 CT was related to post injection breakthrough investigation - see below.
Oh, I forgot, the actually ignore all of the symptomatic injected for the 1st 2 weeks due to vaccine reactogenicity. And if they had used those data the actual trial evidence would be zero to negative efficiency.
IF general public guidance by the CDC had been only test symptomatic people and only use 28 Ct then there would not have been a pandemic. Just seasonal respiratory distress as was factually the case.
In reality testing for anything beyond 25 Ct is fraud. Even IF they had actually used an actual isolate of the alleged virus.
Do you have a link, section reference or article citation for the two different PCR cycles in the Pfizer trial? I have spent much time in those documents and never saw that gem which should be isolated and bookmarked as a critical piece of evidence. thanks :~)
CDC seems to have effectively memory holed this info.
https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1387819126270353413
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/downloads/Information-for-laboratories-COVID-vaccine-breakthrough-case-investigation.pdf
Dug it up from the wayback machine.
http://web.archive.org/web/20210630201806/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/downloads/Information-for-laboratories-COVID-vaccine-breakthrough-case-investigation.pdf
This is not related to the trials. Matthew's explanation is accurate. The CDC requested ONLY breakthrough case investigation of PCR results in 28 or less.
Thanks so much for the follow up.. so rare for folks to return w promised info.. always bonus points from me for Wayback links to source documents! :~)
I think I do. Ill look later I left Bedrock for the real world already his morning.
Hello smarty cats, would any of you, or Mathew, be so kind as to link your favorite post covering the change of definition of vaccine that took place in 2021? With wayback machine screenshots? I thought that was a RTE post, but search did not yield results. I know a great post was written on the topic. I'd like to link to it for my current article on vaccine exemptions, so that I don't spend time re-writing what has already been written brilliantly.
I know this sounds terrible, but I've collected a 5-digit number of pages of notes, and written a 4-digit amount, half of which is not even published yet! While I know I organized that info, I can't even recall if and where I put it. And I haven't had the time to go back and fully organize all my writing:
https://www.campfire.wiki/doku.php?id=rounding_the_earth
I'll keep this window open for a bit so that if I stumble on it, I can alert you.
I have used Copernic (Windows) as a kind of desktop Google for years. It indexes files, and when you click on a search result, it gives you a file preview with the string you're looking for. It doesn't help you organize, but it does really help you search.
I just picked up a new book called "Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth" and an interesting claim in there is that placebo in RTC are often other vaccines and in the case were there is not a predecessor vaccine they will often remove the viral portion of the concoction and inject that. The one thing that is not used is something like saline.
Do we know what the placebo in these treatments actual was? Just strait up LNP without mRNA?
Matt, funny that you refer to a book called “Turtles All the Way Down”. I was discussing definitions, testing and standards on another substack. As an engineer trying to make sense of how biological testing works and trying (without success) to find a so called “gold standard” underlying the tests. Each time I thought i understood it, I kept finding the so called standard relied on another standard and so on and so forth. My actual comment was “It looks to me like it’s turtles all the way down.” Glad to see someone else has thought the same and written a book. Thanks for the reference, I’ll check it out.
I have read the reason they do it this way, is that a vaccine will produce a similar sting or other effect in the arm, whereas saline won't. And if a sting isn't produced, the control group might figure out they received the placebo. Hope I made sense.
I read somewhere they used meningitis vaccine in some of the trials but I could be wrong or confusing with something else.
The book claims it is proposed as a moral obligation to provide some sort of treatment (same argument for getting rid of the control arm of the covid trials). If your control arm of the trial on an existing vaccine is based on a previously approved vaccine, and you follow that line back to the first vaccine(s) approved, you find the original approvals came when we were not doing RCT if any safety trial at all.
The title of the book comes from this. Turtles all the way down.
In this case for the different covid vaccines what is the placebo? If for the mRNA platforms it is LNP that would hide (at least some) anaphylactic shock as an example. It gets counted as background rate if observed in the control of the study.
This is a good question.
I got the double tap from Phizer, because I fell prey to the coercion centered on their not letting people attend to the dying, and 'you might never see your parents again.'
But that in getting the double tap, that makes it less likely testing for the virus works, so I am potentially putting my aging parents at risk thinking I am negative when I am not?
If that is true, and Phizer and the FDA know it to be true, and that so-called efficacy is just fake testing, then I am increasingly open to accountability that is Capital.
I was not allowed to see someone very dear to me dying in the hospital as were countless others. It was the absolute worst, egregious, words cannot describe my anger of this aspect.
Capital indeed.
Here is a poll that says 57% of American adults have faith the CDC can control the spread of monkeypox. I conclude from that, if that poll isn't totally gamed, that 57% of American adults are chickenshit idiots who would stand silent and supportive as their government perpetrated genocide against their fellow Americans.
I'm so hot too about it all, it is only after I posted that that I empathized you. I feel your anger and something of your pain.
"The COVID vaccines strongly reduce the chance of a positive PCR nasal swab among anyone suffering from COVID-like illness."
This is because vaccinated people are tested at a MUCH lower number of cycles. If you report that you are unvaccinated, they will top the cycles out UNTIL they find something, anything, which they will refer to as a covid virus.
This is a popular myth, but that's not how it happened.
Matthew, do you know how the PCR tests were calibrated? I recall reading at some point late in the game that they were calibrated to the common cold — I do know that the CDC posted a disclaimer that said in effect a positive test could not distinguish between SARS-CoV-2 and the common cold.
Yes, they stopped using the S protein as a target. I suspect this was due to the fact that they ran out of variants in the viral swarm for which they could use S-gene target failure for proxy identification.
Yep. And the actual inventor of the PCR test has clearly stated that it cannot be used to diagnose ANY infection.
PCR can be used to diagnose an infection IF a viral culture is also done. Raoult showed that very plainly.
It actually did happen and was well documented by an endless stream of doctors and scientists who were OUTRAGED at the level of fraud.
We are also outraged at the fraudulent order the CDC made for hospitals to falsely classify recently-vaccinated as "unvaccinated" whenever they showed up at the hospitals with vaccine injuries, IF they had only gotten their 1st jab, or it had been less than 14 days since their 2nd jab. OBVIOUSLY this was intended to hide the TRUTH about how badly the vaccines were affecting the public.
Go sell your pharma lies and shilling somewhere else. This is the wrong feed for pharma propagandists, OR for people who are too ignorant to know when THEY have been lied to. Enjoy your boosters. Nobody here is listening to the lies anymore.
If it's well documented, you can link, I'm sure.
What you're doing is repeating a Mashup of multiple stories, and I do t have time to explain it. But it has nothing to do with the trials.
The first foundational thing you might want to be aware of, is that the PCR test produces 97% false positives to begin with: SEE: https://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=364945
You can choose to trust pharma-funded "fact checkers" or you can use your own BRAIN.
Next you might want to READ this information: https://newsrescue.com/cdc-quietly-deletes-guidance-virally-criticized-as-double-standard-for-reporting-breakthrough-cases/
Therein, you will see that the authors can absolutely back up what they are saying about the CDC's guidance with regard to the PCR test cycles. They saved the original PDF before the CDC was busted and scrubbed it from their site. The reason they wanted the lower cycles for vaccinated people was to cover the fact that vaccinated people were catching covid (what ever the hell it really is) at a higher rate that UNVACCINATED people.
Only people who were living under a rock, or the WILLFULLY ignorant did not see the evidence when this story first hit. The evidence is real, but people like you don't believe you are getting wet in the rain until your TV tells you it is raining.
But at this point, you appear to be a pharma shill, or else someone who just refuses to look at the truth. You certainly do not like people who know it and tell it.
"the PCR test produces 97% false positives to begin with"
We have to get these details right if we're going to wake people up.
The same PCR test can produce anywhere from 100-x to 100% false positives, where x is the specificity of the test. A blanket statement about false positives is the kind of misuse of statistics that is actually hurting our position. The false positive rate varies dramatically through populations and seasons. There is a more important underlying story, I suspect, which is that many false positives were due to the fact that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating before we were told it was, thus there were RNA fragments in people's systems. I think that the spike may have been intentionally designed to be longer lasting in terms of systemic breakdown, and for slower total viral clearance.
"But at this point, you appear to be a pharma shill, or else someone who just refuses to look at the truth."
Um. Wow. All I did was give up a 7-digit income to start educating people as best as possible.
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/the-chloroquine-wars-part-xviii
Realize that I made that video to deter fear over positive testing way back in 2020.
Yes, the tests were a sham. But understand that the document that you linked to is a highly simplified argument designed for a court to understand. I'm trying to do my best to help people understand the base level because the more people who do, the more people will see the next layer of the Matrix onion in order to peel it back.
The court of public opinion is a little different than a court of law. I understand the difference. I was unaware you were currently in court fighting, and that this was your platform for that battle.
My primary battle is in a court of law. Here is our lawsuit: https://informedconsentdefense.org/
Spending a 7 digit income attempting to exonerate and make excuses for the CDC, FDA, and pharma (beyond the damage-control they are already conducting) by attempting to discredit anyone who says a foul word about them, seems a waste of money to me. And the only people I can think of who would pay anyone that sort of money to say anything at all, would be those who are part of the depopulation agenda. Who exactly hired to you hang around this platform selling the idea pharma is good, and anyone who says anything bad about them must be bad?
Joy, two brief comments:
(1) First, I've been a paid subscriber to Mathew's Substack for quite a while. I do that because he is a hard-working analyst who publishes good analysis of many COVID-related topics, including his long-running series on hydroxychloroquine. For you to insinuate he is a Pharma shill only discredits you, not him.
(2) Second, I looked at your "READ this information" document. It was a mash-up of various opinions, including Berendson who has been wrong on several points (I quit following him after he accused Robert Malone of being an operative for the other side!). But if you ignore the opinions expressed there and look strictly at the facts reported, it shows that in fact your claim is wrong, as Mathew gently pointed out initially. The quoted CDC guidance did not affect PCR testing for the general public to tell if they are infected or not. Both vaccinated and unvaccinated are tested in the same way with the same cycle threshold. The CDC does complete sequencing on a minor fraction of the samples; their reduced cycle threshold instructions applied to that. Getting reliable sequences requires a reasonable starting concentration, the document says, and I have no reason to doubt that.
This isn't to say there aren't problems with PCR testing. But the problems aren't where you say they are.
I noticed you did not bother to go READ the actual PDF guidance on the PCR which the CDC scrubbed once everyone was on to them and in an uproar. Thankfully, someone saved it for us to READ. Apparently, you only trust pharma & Soros-funded fact checkers who do damage control for the extermination agenda so it can progress.
They have plenty to coverup, and if you think they are not busy doing so, well,...I have bridge you might be interested in buying. You go right on trusting their "science" and excuses. Only fools trust the CDC or the PCR tests. Good luck.
It's true that hospitals limited their PCR testing to 34 cycles (most was likely quantitative) and community qualitative PCR was cycled much higher, which will produce many more false positives.
Then there was the RAT boondoggle, which isn't worth discussing.
I also remember seeing the documentation about the differing test cycle rates back during the "pandemic of the unvaccinated" nonsense. However you are coming across as very aggressive...
I guess this EXTERMINATION event is mild in comparison.
You are really a piece of work. An ignorant piece of work to boot.
"Ignorant" because I conducted a nationwide study on the subject? Or I am a "false flag" person who works for pharma? Yeah sure, go with that.
Calling names is how one avoids the debate, which they must do, because they are ignorant.
Perhaps you should stop accusing Crawford if you don't like it done to you.
Perhaps. Point taken.
I do still assert that their are foundational presumptions which are entirely false, and which are required to support the continued proliferation of the death jabs. And until we get to the facts, (confirm whether or not the foundational presumptions are even true) the entire farce will continue.
I also still assert that this is not the time to believe or support any of pharma's underlying lies, for which they have yet to provide any data to support. No matter how engrained any one of their old lies has become to all of us, we must stop and question it if we are to break the spell.
One foundational lie, is that poor health is not the cause of disease, but rather a lack of vaccines is what causes disease. Supporting the pharma lie that the cause of disease is whatever particle they tell us is causing it, (rather than our own poor health being the cause) will never get us anywhere.
I think you've hit on something very important here Matthew.
I've often stated that the PCR tests are meaningless, and that "cases" just mean "positive test results". However, I hadn't considered that the vaxx could be effective at reducing the likelihood of a positive test result without also having any effect on the presence of any disease or symptoms. That revelation is quite eye-opening for me.
Please don't forget RTE Rumble links for folks who won't go to Youtube! :~)
https://rumble.com/c/RoundingTheEarth
Very interesting considerations. If I understood correctly, the hypothesis is that vaxxed subjects in the trials may have been less likely to test +ve despite having the clinical symptoms of the disease, thus creating an illusion of efficacy. However, my previous (admittedly superficial) understanding was that a large enough number of subjects to swing the outcome/conclusion re efficacy had clinical symptoms but were not even tested (for reasons the reporting did not make clear). Am I wrong? If not wrong, how do these two issues intersect?
So in 2021 I understood the problem as articulated by Doshi et al that the trials were never designed to determine efficacy against severe illness or death, but rather efficacy against testing positive.
I learned the difference between the highly touted relative risk reduction and the actual miserable absolute risk reduction of the vaccines.
I read Crawford's explanation of how to define away safety signals, and subscribed to RTE to support his work.
I read Fenton's explanation of how the time-stamping of cumulative data can conjure efficacy something from efficacy nothing in the real-world rollout.
I learned about a lot of different ways of lying.
But I did assume that testing positive at an appropriate PCR cycle was an honest proxy for coronavirus infection: for the presence of the virus of interest, regardless of progress of the disease. Mullis said that PCR tests can find something from almost nothing, and that false positives were likely... But it did not occur to me to question the negatives.
Now it's 2022 and I've read Masterjohn's post about false negatives. So that's where the bodies are buried? The vaccines were efficacious against throwing a positive PCR during the clinical trial period, and then again at vaccine rollout in the real world?
I guess it was all laid out by Doshi, https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-we-need-more-details-and-the-raw-data/
And the seminal article, https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037.
"[Just a PCR (polymerase chain reaction test)-positive mild infection] with only mild symptoms qualify as meeting the primary endpoint definition. In Pfizer and Moderna’s trials, for example, people with only a cough and positive laboratory test would bring those trials one event closer to their completion."
“Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission."
There is another piece to the vaccine efficacy puzzle--false negatives. False negative rates for covid vaccines were very high when Hopkins published its review of studies of false negative rates from pcr. Hopkins found a minimum of 20% false negatives, which occurred when people were tested on the 3rd day after symptom onset. False negative rates INCREASED from 20% on the time curve in both directions.
So what are the implications for vaccine efficacy studies? False negatives, if undetected, result in higher efficacy. If detected, they decrease efficacy. How can false negatives be detected? With cell culturing. But that wasn't done in studies, so what can we do?
If we have certain data, we can estimate the false negative count in vaccine efficacy studies. We would need the rate at the time of the study and the number of tests conducted based on ILI (influenza-like illness) symptoms. Pfizer didn't reveal the number of tests yet, but possibly we will obtain that info in the future.
People should be discussing this issue. The study design was fraudulent for failing to discover false negatives with cell culturing and Pfizer was hiding the data on the count of the total number of tests.
To gauge the impact of false negatives, it would only take 20 false negatives in both placebo and vax arms to reduce vax efficacy to 50%. Considering 22,000 subjects in each arm, having 200 ILIs in winter in each arm would be very low.
Hi Matthew, I so appreciate the work you do. You are extremley intelligent. Thank you again for your rational approach. Somehow in all this scariness, I find the way you do your work, oddly, reassurring. I am a 60 year old trying to make sense of this crazy world. You and several others are a beacon of light to me. The hysteria of many who are reporting what is happening, ends of making people more frightened than they already are. It hurts their important message because people can only take in so much "fear-inducement". People do not realize that they should not be making it hard for people to make the changes needed in the world and acquiring the knowledge needed for what really happened with the pandemic ( and the last how many years now!), it overwhelms and makes people feel hopeless. They want to turn off and turn for hope (going toward God, which many of us do otherwise, but they really give up listening and reading much). You do not do this. If you know anyone else to follow, besides Kevin McCairn, Charles Rixey, Dr. Fleming let me know please. Also, where can I read material from Jon Couey?