“If you want me to speak two minutes you give me a notification of two weeks; if you want me to speak five minutes, I should have a notification of one week, but if you want me to talk all day, here I am.” -H.L. Stickney or whoever you want to attribute it to

At just after 2 PM EST, I will speak at the VRBPAC meeting. I'm happy with it. Actually, I'm damned excited. Maybe that's the result of me not thinking clearly after staying up all night working on the talk and this article.

I just watched Dr. Cody Meissner point out that only 39% of "COVID-19 hospitalizations" in Massachusetts were due to COVID-19 (versus other reasons). I would be excited for his conscious wisdom were it not for Dr. Heather Scobie's scary pile of absurdities that included,

Using S-gene Target Failure as a proxy for omicron identification as an improvement in surveillance. She suggests this improved sensitivity, but I'd couch that as a "Let's call this other thing 'omicron' no matter what it really is" policy, not to mention what happens to the specificity rate and the false positive rate. I'd wager those go down and up, respectively. But I suppose there are people who get all hot and bothered by upselling infection rates.
She states without data that vaccines likely neutralized omicron more often than estimated because viral loads were below detection limits for some vaccinated individuals. If that's true…how did she…or anyone…detect that? And might it also be true for some unvaccinated individuals? Why make the claim if you're not showing your work?
She referenced the usual "minimum amount of antibodies thought to protect against severe disease," which is at least an accidental admission that authorities haven't even worked out the mechanism by which there is such thing as sufficient antibodies beneath the epithelial layer to prevent infection. Um…
She presented official-looking surveillance data for a quarter of one percent of the U.S., with a fair advisory that this was closer to examining East Los Angeles than the whole nation, or allowing us to wonder how cherry-picked it might be. That's how stupid they hope we are.
She participated in the charade that omicron is a variant (descendant) of SARS-CoV-2.

Wow, she looks bored. I don't blame her. I can't imagine that this is as exciting as virtual dojo where she sells $200 incense burners.

Rising Action

Two days ago, nearly two weeks after I committed to present, I was told that nobody in the committee who will vote on whether to recommend the booster shots will hear my talk. That is a shame. And it's weird. It's a weird shame. But at least those in the public who are watching today will hear it.

This is not the talk that I originally prepared. I spent around ten days working on my presentation, which made heavy use of slides, but I missed the deadline for slide submission because I confused the meeting page (with some instructions) with a complete set of instructions for the meeting. Somehow it seems intuitive that there would be one set of instructions in one location, or that the first location would reference the second set of instructions, along with where to find them.

Understand that my dyslexia renders me blind in a way that is difficult to relate to others (though I try), and I read maybe 10% of my emails (at best). I missed the deadline that was only ever explained in an email that whizzed through my inbox along with around 2,000 emails on March 31—a day in which I attended more than three hours of meetings with a migraine before taking the evening off for dinner on my fourteenth wedding anniversary. I personally can't imagine organizing an important event through separate sets of instructions that have to be pieced together from multiple sources, but I won't claim to understand much about bureaucratic systems. Then again, it's 2022, and if I'd understood all the details in advance, I'd have wondered why we (the speakers) aren't just submitting video presentations. Just…press the 'play' button…

Without slides, I shifted the focus of my presentation from one focused more heavily on the DMED data to a summary of arguments that we still do not have data that points to any vaccine efficacy at all. The DMED story cannot be told well in three minutes without visuals. I will complete that project for an article on another day.

Now for the main course.

My Re-engineered Presentation on the Lack of Vaccine Efficacy

Hi. My name is Mathew Crawford.

I report no conflicts of interest.

Thank you for inviting me to speak.

There is currently no transparent data whatsoever showing efficacy of the experimental COVID-19 injectable products.

What Well-Run Clinical Trials?

We were promised transparency, but the FDA still fights the release of vaccine trial data in court. That data is necessary to determine why so many more people in the treatment arm were excluded from analysis. These exclusions completely overwhelm all efficacy computations.

To this day, Brooke Jackson’s reports of protocol deviations, trial unblinding, and data falsification go ignored by the FDA and CDC.

These trials never met basic standards of evidence.

The Engineering of Efficacy Illusions in Retrospective Studies

Neither do the published retrospective studies.

Buried in the supplement of the study by Noa Dagan and colleagues is an incorrect set of calculations that fail to adjust for a serious bias that the study acknowledges and then downplays. Professor Mark Reeder demonstrated that the study methodology could make a null saline solution achieve the 72% efficacy rate claimed by the study authors.

Professor Norman Fenton has shown that delays in reporting of mortality can generate short term appearances of efficacy where none exists. It is noteworthy that this illusion would appear like rapidly waning efficacy over time, which is exactly what authorities have been reporting in order to encourage booster shots.

In another study on the Israeli population (Haas et al), the use of short intervals of measurement could substantially exacerbate this or other bias effects. The study authors failed to make an obvious risk-adjustment in their base unit of person-days, and most of them reported conflicts of interest in the form of Pfizer equity or options.

Surveillance Data (Ignored)

The CDC now admits to withholding select data from the public. This admission calls all vaccine summary surveillance data into question.

A CDC study from the Vaccine Safety Datalink team concludes that the vaccinated somehow died up to 72% less often than the unvaccinated by non-COVID causes. This absurd result confirms the existence of statistical sieves in surveillance analysis.

Whistleblowers noted higher rates of illness in the Defense Medical Epidemiological Database. The DoD claimed these results were due to a glitch. However, reference data published in the Medical Surveillance Monthly Reports was substantially altered prior to the May 2021 publication. There are still highly concerning vaccine safety signals and it is hard to believe that neither the CDC nor DoD noticed any problem with the data for a full nine months.

Evidence of Mortality

When vaccines rolled out, every nation in Europe saw large spikes in COVID case fatality rates equivalent to over a thousand extra COVID deaths per million doses delivered. An analysis of Massachusetts data found similar results. In line with those calculations, a large German insurance company declared that vaccines killed tens of thousands of Germans.

Global Data Danger Signals

Among nations there are clear positive correlations between vaccination and both COVID-19 case and death rates. These rates rose soon after vaccination programs began in nearly every nation.

Conclusion

This experimental gene therapy campaign is dangerous and unscientific. All facts presented in this talk are cited at the Rounding the Earth substack.

Have a lovely day, and remember: antibodies are like electrolytes.

Subscribe now

Share

Rounding the Earth Newsletter

VRBPAC Presentation: The Ultimate Vaccine Red…