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.
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.”
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.
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 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?
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.
"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.
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.
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
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.
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 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?
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.
"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.
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?