In addition...in my City we are seeing massive health problems emerging. They aren’t rare. One young friend in construction has had FIVE CO-WORKERS disabled from the jab. Five! I’m a business owner. Every single friend I know with a business went all through 2020 with no uptick in sick days from staff. Those same businesses are now closing some days because they all have about 20% of their staff off sick at any given moment. All vaxed. In my business we had 16 of 40 off sick a few weeks ago. All vaxed. Those were guys on the tools. We have six workers in the office. Five off sick, one not. The one not? My son, not vaxed. All the rest vaxed. I have a $225,000 a year guy who has been sick since September. In January he got boosted. And he’s gone way down hill since then. His doctor has ‘diagnosed’ him with Long Haul COVID. Your analysis is not reasonable in the sense it uses data that is compromised to try to come up with something reasonable. That is gentlemanly. It isn’t reasonable, nor possible.
William-I appreciate your passion, and I am sorry to hear you had so many workers out with jab-related problems. I don't doubt your experience, but let me explain that I have been publishing scientific papers, running a research lab, reviewing papers, and reviewing NIH grants for decades. I've sat on scientific advisory boards and reviewed FDA reports. I agree with you that there is dishonesty out there, but it is primarily in the way in which the data are presented. I'm sorry, I've been in this world for a long time and there is evil but I do not think that the studies I cited were falsified in terms of saying individuals did or didn't have COVID or did or didn't die. I looked at all the raw data in the appendices and you can add in excluded individuals and see the safety profile and efficacy decrease but it doesn't change the overall result, which is that they aren't safe enough to be pushing them them way they are. You want me to say they are so unsafe that they shouldn't be offered. That's the kind of thing they're doing with Ivermectin. I'm not playing that game. I am anything but naive, my friend. I know this game very well. Peace.
I’m curious for your thoughts on the whistle-blower’s (Brooke Jackson) testimony related to the data collection irregularities on the clinical trials. More specifically, how do you square her testimony with your analysis of the data? Or is her testimony irrelevant to analyzing the data? Thanks!
MW - I hope your long haul Covid employee makes it. Have no idea what resources his doctor offered him, but he should be looking around for treatment. Steve Kirsch on substack has some posts that discuss long haul treatment and some recommendations for a few doctors and programs that seem to help. FLCC, Pierre Kory, and the two docs in Bakersfield (Tyson and Farhad, maybe, I can't remember) are some places to start digging. Think there are several long haul websites as well.
Your experiences that you write about seem to jive with what I've read elsewhere, especially the part about vaxxed people more susceptible to subsequent infections.
The CDC approved 59 different PCR tests. All with different genetic sequences. Nobody knows what anyone was testing. It’s shocking how weakly illogical the thinking has been.
Most were sequences within the spike RNA and some nucleocapsid RNA and some other ORF (open reading frame) sequences. PCR and RT primers are short-covering only a tiny fraction of the genetic sequence being targeted, which is why positive and negative controls have to be included and the cycle number needs to be kept much lower than they have been doing, so that the results aren't clouded by non-specific amplifications. But it's because the primers are short that there are so many different ones. There are a lot of possible sequences one could use. The typical protocol for PCR primer design is to identify sequences that are specific to the gene of interest such that there is less possibility of them binding to the wrong RNA sequence (in the case of a viral test, you don't want to make a primer to a sequence that is commonly found in our genes). But that there are so many different genetic sequences targeted in the various tests is not unusual. RT-PCR is used all the time in molecular and cellular biology to determine if a gene was expressed. I've done thousands of RT-PCR reactions. You can buy a kit or you can design your own primers, but it's very common for different labs to use different primer sequences to amplify the same gene. Hope that makes sense. You are correct in thinking that mixing and matching test results from different tests is poor scientific methodology and misleading-some are better than others and some may be more prone to amplifying non-specific sequences, but it doesn't mean they were not actually SARSCov2 sequences.
But it doesn’t mean any of them are. The way a virus is isolated is problematic for any Corona virus. Smallpox could be known by its symptoms. It was distinct. 100 people all with smallpox walk into a clinic and you know they have smallpox. Isolating a virus for that is relatively easy. Corona viruses are ubiquitous and they all present similarly. To isolate a virus first you have to absolutely 100% know a certain group has it. Doable with Smallpox measles, chicken pox, and so on. It is not possible with a Corona virus. 100 people walk in with a cold you don’t know if they all have the same strain or each has a different strain. There’s a reason why no one has made a cold vaccine yet.
Thanks for this fulsome explanation. With a small study size, it seemed likely that variables like preexisting health conditions, weight, etc. would confound the results. I have long wondered how they could make the claim that the vaccine prevented severe outcomes. That just seems so speculative.
Thank you Kathryn. Your analysis is not complete however. First, Pfizer has repeatedly lied. They hid adverse events, they hid deaths. They exaggerated efficacy. They waged a psychological campaign on people for a year, and it continues. If you were investing with a stock broker and you caught him lying over and over. If he were receiving commissions for selling you a certain product and not another (Ivermectin). If he were exaggerating the financial strength of a company. If he tries to put you into a company with no track record of making good vaccines, and with a track record of massive successful lawsuits against it. YOU WOULDN’T INVEST with him. You’d pull your money. Pfizer hid adverse reactions. It did all those things. Common sense says no one should take a Moderna or Pfizer vaccine. No one.
William-I only demystify what is published. I have heard that adverse events and deaths have been hidden, but point of my newsletter is to help people understand the science that is being cited and understand what it says. Remember that just as no one has the right to tell us to take the vaccine, we cannot demand others not take it. The reason I hesitate to join you in your stance is that it sounds too much like the stance Fauci-et al took to force lockdowns and mandates. People kept saying that there were COVID deaths not being reported-like there is a stash of bodies somewhere that is being kept secret. The vaccine has been administered to millions of people. There aren't thousands of bodies piling up. You are very likely correct that the safety is worse than currently being touted. I have no issue with that stance. But there are going to be people for whom the vaccine is going to help them. The problem is not people like me explaining what the data that are out there mean. We are not seeing 1% of people dying from this. We're on the same side.
I appreciate what you’re trying to do. And it is important as these concepts aren’t clear to most people. But all Cause mortality is way up in BC. Mostly in younger people. When something has been shown to be deadly it isn’t reasonable to say ‘it might be helpful for some People’. When one or two cars out of 100,000 blow up all those cars are pulled. There has been enough damage done now. These must be stopped.
I have to admit this is a pretty balanced explanation of things, and for that I say "job well done". I think the only thing I'd disagree with you on is the reliance on VAERS and the Pfizer and Moderna data, as I don't trust P and M, and VAERS seems to be under-reported by the government's own admission.
However, still like this article, and wish we saw more like this in mainstream media.
Hi Bruce. Thanks for the input. The goal of Demystifying Science is to explain what the studies being used to enact various regulations or coerce the public into acquiescing to mandates actually showed and what the limitations were. The fact that VAERS is the primary dataset used by those NOT affiliated with the pharma companies doing the safety and efficacy studies is definitely a weakness in those studies. Addressing the inherent honesty or lack thereof of the pharma companies is a separate issue and one that is not evident in published scientific studies. I do sporadically write opinion pieces that get at what I perceive as the motives of health officials (like my last one), but for the data analyses, I simply explain what was done in a given study that is being used to defend mandates. The P and M studies use a very deceptive means of claiming efficacy, as I point out, but it's not inherently incorrect. That's why it's important to understand what they did and put aside any feelings about the companies' honesty while reading the study. They're two separate issues.
In addition...in my City we are seeing massive health problems emerging. They aren’t rare. One young friend in construction has had FIVE CO-WORKERS disabled from the jab. Five! I’m a business owner. Every single friend I know with a business went all through 2020 with no uptick in sick days from staff. Those same businesses are now closing some days because they all have about 20% of their staff off sick at any given moment. All vaxed. In my business we had 16 of 40 off sick a few weeks ago. All vaxed. Those were guys on the tools. We have six workers in the office. Five off sick, one not. The one not? My son, not vaxed. All the rest vaxed. I have a $225,000 a year guy who has been sick since September. In January he got boosted. And he’s gone way down hill since then. His doctor has ‘diagnosed’ him with Long Haul COVID. Your analysis is not reasonable in the sense it uses data that is compromised to try to come up with something reasonable. That is gentlemanly. It isn’t reasonable, nor possible.
William-I appreciate your passion, and I am sorry to hear you had so many workers out with jab-related problems. I don't doubt your experience, but let me explain that I have been publishing scientific papers, running a research lab, reviewing papers, and reviewing NIH grants for decades. I've sat on scientific advisory boards and reviewed FDA reports. I agree with you that there is dishonesty out there, but it is primarily in the way in which the data are presented. I'm sorry, I've been in this world for a long time and there is evil but I do not think that the studies I cited were falsified in terms of saying individuals did or didn't have COVID or did or didn't die. I looked at all the raw data in the appendices and you can add in excluded individuals and see the safety profile and efficacy decrease but it doesn't change the overall result, which is that they aren't safe enough to be pushing them them way they are. You want me to say they are so unsafe that they shouldn't be offered. That's the kind of thing they're doing with Ivermectin. I'm not playing that game. I am anything but naive, my friend. I know this game very well. Peace.
I’m curious for your thoughts on the whistle-blower’s (Brooke Jackson) testimony related to the data collection irregularities on the clinical trials. More specifically, how do you square her testimony with your analysis of the data? Or is her testimony irrelevant to analyzing the data? Thanks!
We will agree to disagree. I do appreciate your approach.
MW - I hope your long haul Covid employee makes it. Have no idea what resources his doctor offered him, but he should be looking around for treatment. Steve Kirsch on substack has some posts that discuss long haul treatment and some recommendations for a few doctors and programs that seem to help. FLCC, Pierre Kory, and the two docs in Bakersfield (Tyson and Farhad, maybe, I can't remember) are some places to start digging. Think there are several long haul websites as well.
Your experiences that you write about seem to jive with what I've read elsewhere, especially the part about vaxxed people more susceptible to subsequent infections.
He doesn’t have long haul COVID. He has vax disease.
That makes way more sense to me since I don't think long COVID is a thing. Not at any significant frequency anyway.
The CDC approved 59 different PCR tests. All with different genetic sequences. Nobody knows what anyone was testing. It’s shocking how weakly illogical the thinking has been.
Most were sequences within the spike RNA and some nucleocapsid RNA and some other ORF (open reading frame) sequences. PCR and RT primers are short-covering only a tiny fraction of the genetic sequence being targeted, which is why positive and negative controls have to be included and the cycle number needs to be kept much lower than they have been doing, so that the results aren't clouded by non-specific amplifications. But it's because the primers are short that there are so many different ones. There are a lot of possible sequences one could use. The typical protocol for PCR primer design is to identify sequences that are specific to the gene of interest such that there is less possibility of them binding to the wrong RNA sequence (in the case of a viral test, you don't want to make a primer to a sequence that is commonly found in our genes). But that there are so many different genetic sequences targeted in the various tests is not unusual. RT-PCR is used all the time in molecular and cellular biology to determine if a gene was expressed. I've done thousands of RT-PCR reactions. You can buy a kit or you can design your own primers, but it's very common for different labs to use different primer sequences to amplify the same gene. Hope that makes sense. You are correct in thinking that mixing and matching test results from different tests is poor scientific methodology and misleading-some are better than others and some may be more prone to amplifying non-specific sequences, but it doesn't mean they were not actually SARSCov2 sequences.
But it doesn’t mean any of them are. The way a virus is isolated is problematic for any Corona virus. Smallpox could be known by its symptoms. It was distinct. 100 people all with smallpox walk into a clinic and you know they have smallpox. Isolating a virus for that is relatively easy. Corona viruses are ubiquitous and they all present similarly. To isolate a virus first you have to absolutely 100% know a certain group has it. Doable with Smallpox measles, chicken pox, and so on. It is not possible with a Corona virus. 100 people walk in with a cold you don’t know if they all have the same strain or each has a different strain. There’s a reason why no one has made a cold vaccine yet.
Thanks for this fulsome explanation. With a small study size, it seemed likely that variables like preexisting health conditions, weight, etc. would confound the results. I have long wondered how they could make the claim that the vaccine prevented severe outcomes. That just seems so speculative.
Thank you Kathryn. Your analysis is not complete however. First, Pfizer has repeatedly lied. They hid adverse events, they hid deaths. They exaggerated efficacy. They waged a psychological campaign on people for a year, and it continues. If you were investing with a stock broker and you caught him lying over and over. If he were receiving commissions for selling you a certain product and not another (Ivermectin). If he were exaggerating the financial strength of a company. If he tries to put you into a company with no track record of making good vaccines, and with a track record of massive successful lawsuits against it. YOU WOULDN’T INVEST with him. You’d pull your money. Pfizer hid adverse reactions. It did all those things. Common sense says no one should take a Moderna or Pfizer vaccine. No one.
William-I only demystify what is published. I have heard that adverse events and deaths have been hidden, but point of my newsletter is to help people understand the science that is being cited and understand what it says. Remember that just as no one has the right to tell us to take the vaccine, we cannot demand others not take it. The reason I hesitate to join you in your stance is that it sounds too much like the stance Fauci-et al took to force lockdowns and mandates. People kept saying that there were COVID deaths not being reported-like there is a stash of bodies somewhere that is being kept secret. The vaccine has been administered to millions of people. There aren't thousands of bodies piling up. You are very likely correct that the safety is worse than currently being touted. I have no issue with that stance. But there are going to be people for whom the vaccine is going to help them. The problem is not people like me explaining what the data that are out there mean. We are not seeing 1% of people dying from this. We're on the same side.
I appreciate what you’re trying to do. And it is important as these concepts aren’t clear to most people. But all Cause mortality is way up in BC. Mostly in younger people. When something has been shown to be deadly it isn’t reasonable to say ‘it might be helpful for some People’. When one or two cars out of 100,000 blow up all those cars are pulled. There has been enough damage done now. These must be stopped.
I have to admit this is a pretty balanced explanation of things, and for that I say "job well done". I think the only thing I'd disagree with you on is the reliance on VAERS and the Pfizer and Moderna data, as I don't trust P and M, and VAERS seems to be under-reported by the government's own admission.
However, still like this article, and wish we saw more like this in mainstream media.
Hi Bruce. Thanks for the input. The goal of Demystifying Science is to explain what the studies being used to enact various regulations or coerce the public into acquiescing to mandates actually showed and what the limitations were. The fact that VAERS is the primary dataset used by those NOT affiliated with the pharma companies doing the safety and efficacy studies is definitely a weakness in those studies. Addressing the inherent honesty or lack thereof of the pharma companies is a separate issue and one that is not evident in published scientific studies. I do sporadically write opinion pieces that get at what I perceive as the motives of health officials (like my last one), but for the data analyses, I simply explain what was done in a given study that is being used to defend mandates. The P and M studies use a very deceptive means of claiming efficacy, as I point out, but it's not inherently incorrect. That's why it's important to understand what they did and put aside any feelings about the companies' honesty while reading the study. They're two separate issues.