Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?

[bjorb]

Klaus Schwab Dark Lord of Ze Great Reset didn't anticipate that an angrier world would one day come back to bite them.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1460602881594302469

 

[JEEP]

He said that with every argument he refuted, they were just silent.

I guess no one happened to record this exchange? It sure would come in useful for those who heard it - when they fall back to their programmed beliefs - to hear it again and for those who weren't in attendance to also be shown it. Kudos to him for standing up for truth and against "the crowd"!

 

[Nachtweide]

Now it has also arrived in my microcosm. I live in a community and we had once taken it upon ourselves to be solidary and open-minded. Everyone knows everyone and everyone helps everyone. Since I moved in in 2015, we've had a lot of fun together and everything has always been a bit "different" than in an anonymous apartment block.
At the beginning of the Corona period everyone was looking for ways out and there were concerts in our garden during the lockdown and singing from the balconies. My naive little mind had thought that even with the vaccination it would be different from somewhere else. Since yesterday I know that I seem to have been completely wrong.

About 100 people including children live here. We are a colourful average of humanity, there are all here families, couples, pensioners, disabled, gay, people from all over the world etc. As far as I know there are currently 6 unvaccinated people here in the house. Some time ago one of them started a group to network (at that time there were still 10 people not vaccinated) we met in our common room to exchange ideas. There were also a few like-minded people from "outside" (that's what they always call it when someone comes to visit).
A few "vaccinated" people noticed this and got terribly upset about the people we were bringing into the house... Words such as "lateral thinkers", "conspiracy theorists", "Nazis", etc. .... were used... At the next meeting, a flatmate who wanted to check things out "happened" to be in the common room right at the beginning of the meeting to look something up in the calendar.
This story alone shocked me, but I thought well, it's a few individuals....

I can so feel for you. In the meantime, I simply can't and don't want to worry about my "remote-controlled" environment anymore. Professionally, I am under massive fire, which massively strengthens my core characteristic "stoic calm". The more I am under pressure, the calmer, more relaxed and mentally stronger I become. Especially in the last few days or weeks, the external pressure on our practices has become enormous and I wonder about myself. No fear, no restlessness and a belief in a new future that almost seems schizophrenic in the face of the pressure. Today a patient said to me: You radiate such calmness and contentment, which is already a true rarity in this day and age. My gaze is directed into the distance, Corona is a chess game for me with the challenge for me: I will checkmate the king. My fighting spirit has been activated - me against the world. That's how I was born - into the drawer of the minority. To withstand the pressure of wanting to be different - that's what I had to learn since childhood. In addition, an incredible patience and stoic calm - I had to learn to keep my mouth shut even if I wanted to say something. Control your thinking and your emotions, otherwise they will control you. It's getting very tight for us now in Germany. It was foreseeable what is coming now and I am aware that we only have to go 3 steps to the finish. The next hole in the belt will be 2G - a lockdown for the unvaccinated. That leaves 2 measures - the small mandatory vaccination for special occupational groups and the general mandatory vaccination. But they have already blown it - nursing will leave the field. The lie is now becoming palpable even among the vaccinated. I had calculated timelines some time ago. 1933 was the year of the propaganda, the book burning, the installation of persecution and the Nazis. from 1933 to the introduction of the Jewish star 1941 it took 8 years. This week I read that the "unvaccinated" are now to be marked in Christmas markets so that they do not eat or drink anything freely after the motto of 1941: Do not buy anything from Jews. For the time from 1933 to 1941 we need today about 8 months. 4 years later came the capitulation of Germany. according to today's time calculation this means: In summer 22 it is over. They lie and are so under time pressure, everything now every day even for vaccinated blind people will not be able to overlook. In February the care must booster - many refuse it because of the side effects - the health system has the power by refusal to prevent the vaccination duty. Then the game is over. We wait and are very excited....

 

[JEEP]

The beginning of the end of the ruse?

The vaccinated are DROPPING DEAD in plain view as Fauci and the media admit total vax FAILURE… while pimping more booster shots for the gullible​

It’s now official: Tony Fauci has admitted that vaccines aren’t working and that vaccinated people of every age are getting sick and dying. His exact quote from a New York Times podcast on Nov. 12th, as reported by Yahoo News:

They are seeing a waning of immunity not only against infection but against hospitalization and to some extent death, which is starting to now involve all age groups. It isn’t just the elderly…

It’s waning to the point that you’re seeing more and more people getting breakthrough infections, and more and more of those people who are getting breakthrough infections are winding up in the hospital.

This is after months of claiming vaccines had “95% effectiveness” and that they were so safe and effective, everyone should be jabbed multiple times. Suddenly that false narrative has collapsed, along with a growing list of soccer players and young sports professionals who are literally dying on sports fields across the globe.

The vaccinated are DROPPING DEAD in plain view as Fauci and the media admit total vax FAILURE… while pimping more booster shots for the gullible – NaturalNews.com

It’s now official: Tony Fauci has admitted that vaccines aren’t working and that vaccinated people of every age are getting sick and dying. His exact quote from a New York Times podcast on Nov. 12th, as reported by Yahoo News: They are seeing a waning of immunity not only against infection but...

www.naturalnews.com

 

[naorma]

History repeating itself.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1460594691074842626

I saw that video, too and there are reports of police controls in tha big malls, too. But we also learned that the controls are very heavy at the beginning of a new restriction. After 3 days or 1 week that will calm down.

Most of "us"(the unvaccies - at least around me) are very calm meanwhile. We have now that lockdown like we had it before 3 times. So we learned to deal with it.

Nevertheless there is much much anger: This is a statement from an opposition politician that points out the situation:

"Chaos rules! The government drew up a step-by-step plan weeks ago that it does not adhere to. Almost every day there are new measures, from 3G to 2G to 2.5G and 2G plus. The Chancellor says A, the Minister of Health says B and the federal states say C. This chaos is unparalleled. It is an absolute cheek how those politically responsible in this country treat the population. The lockdown for this chaos troop is the only way out of the crisis mode!"

It seems even to different where working people need to have 2G and meanwhile there is a rumour that they will bring us to a total lockdown again. So: Sit back and relax!

 

[JEEP]

A winner:

 

[JEEP]

Hmm - more inconvenient facts coming out:

Comprehensive Study Could Find Just 25 Under-18 Covid Deaths in Entire England (Population: 56 Million)​

A comprehensive analysis of hospital admissions and reported deaths across England suggests that COVID-19 carries a lower risk of dying or requiring intensive care among children and young people than was previously thought.

In a series of preprints published on medRxiv1–3, a team of researchers picked through all hospital admissions and deaths reported for people younger than 18 in England. The studies found that COVID-19 caused 25 deaths in that age group between March 2020 and February 2021.

About half of those deaths were in individuals with an underlying complex disability with high health-care needs, such as tube feeding or assistance with breathing.

 

[JEEP]

Again, more facts MIA in MSM:

New VAERS analysis reveals hundreds of serious adverse events that the CDC and FDA never told us about​

In a brand new VAERS data analysis performed by our friend Albert Benavides (aka WelcomeTheEagle88), we found hundreds of serious adverse events that were completely missed by the CDC that should have been mentioned in the informed consent document that are given to patients. And we found over 200 symptoms that occur at a higher relative rate than myocarditis (relative to all previous vaccines over the last 5 years). All together, there were over 4,000 VAERS adverse event codes that were elevated by these vaccines by a factor of 10 or more over baseline that the CDC should have warned people about.

As of November 1, 2021, there have been more adverse events reported for the COVID vaccines than for all 70+ vaccines combined since they started tracking adverse events 30 years ago. That’s a stunning statistic, nobody can deny it, but nobody in the mainstream medical community (or mainstream media) seems to care much. It’s not even worth noting in passing. Wow.

 

[Learner]

How shocking to hear that, Mililea! But as it is being displayed in Lobaczweski's book Political Ponerology, the ponerisation can run as deep as even into the smallest social units - and that's what we experiece today, with our families, friends, work colleagues, house communities, neighborhoods, etc. It's just so sad to see, but they had many decades to refine these tools of mental and psychological manipulation which they are now using on us.

We also have a solidarity working group in our house, it was held last night and my husband (vaccinated with AZ himself) went and faced the issue, which of course came up. He was there for 2.5 hours. When he came back, he drove in in his wheelchair with his hand raised and said: "I defended you to the death and really went out of my way.

It is very heartening to hear how your husband, as vaccinated person, went out of his way to champion for you and to stun all those disagreeing people with his arguments. It speaks of a great inner strength.

Something similar happened to me when they introduced 2G in our state in the East of Germany 1,5 weeks ago. One of my injected work colleagues said to me: "What are you going to do onwards from tomorrow [since you are not vaccinated - my addition]?" I replied: "I will still be able to come to work, as according to the current corona protection law of our state 2G will be only applied to the guests [I work in the visitor's service of a cultural institution], while for the workplace 3G remains in place." She answered something like this: "Well, but shouldn't the logical consequence be that unvaccinated workers are to be excluded as well?" I was quite shocked and just thought: What the heck? Is she going to demand that I and the other unjabbed colleagues are getting fired and condemned to the streets just because we made another choice for whatever reason? {Apart from that, she is a nice coworker and I normally get along with her well. But she believes in the Covid narrative and the usefulness of the restrictions.}

But then another vaccinated colleague who was in the same room interjected: "Well, but many companies and institutions can't afford to get rid of workers right now as it would mean great economic losses for them." It's very good that she as an injected person stepped in with some rationality because if I had been the one to come up with that argument the whole dynamic would have been one of too much opposition, with the colleague in question maybe not really listening to me.

Our situations remind me somewhat of the whole anti-semitism shtick: If non-Jewish people use to say something critical about the government in Israel, for example, they usually are sqarely condemned as anti-semites, with less people listening what they actually had to say as a consequence (especially as they are non-Jewish). But if Jewish people themselves are coming forward in order to criticize the same things, it's not just that easy to dismiss them as anti-semites - and that's probably why we have seen a bunch of Jewish authors and speakers coming forward just doing that as the probability they were given more credit of what they had to convey was higher.

So, it's really good if people who are vaccinated help people like us and step forward, similarly as there had been Germans and other Europeans hiding Jews from Nazis or helping them otherwise. And that's why I try to keep good relationships with them and find other topics & things to relate, maybe by listening to them, being sympathetic to them, helping them in some way in order to have a bond which could not be teared as easily - unless we'd brush on certain topics too much.

 

[Learner]

I have found the following on Telegram some time ago, and it might be another strategy to avoid the jab if pressure at the workplace grew, aside from that one suggested by Michael. It's mainly a strategy of "playing along" without outrightly refusing the jab, by demanding certain information from one's employer as a condition (conditional acceptance):

From a lawyer:

If you are being forced to Vax in order to keep your job, here’s a great way to handle it. (Conditional acceptance)

The secret is NOT to refuse it.

“I write with regard to the matter of potential covid vaccine and my desire to be fully informed and appraised of ALL facts before going ahead. I’d be most grateful if you could please provide the following information, in accordance with statutory legal requirements.”:

1. Can you please advise the approved legal status of any vaccine and if it is experimental?

2. Can you please provide details and assurances that the vaccine has been fully, independently and rigorously tested against control groups and the subsequent outcomes of those tests?

3. Can you please advise the entire list of contents of the vaccine I am to receive and if any are toxic to the body?

4. Can you please fully advise of all the adverse reactions associated with this vaccine since it’s introduction?

5. Can you please confirm that the vaccine you are advocating is NOT experimental mRNA gene altering therapy?

6. Can you please confirm that I will not be under any duress from yourselves as my employers, in compliance with the Nuremberg Code?

7. Can you please advise me of the likely risk of fatality, should I be unfortunate to contract Covid 19 and the likelihood of recovery?

8. Can you please advise me if I were to experience any adverse reactions is the manufacturer of the vaccine liable? If the manufacturer isn’t liable will the company I’m currently employed with with be responsible & liable as it is their request that I have the vaccine in order to carry on my employment?

Once I have received the above information in full and I am satisfied that there is NO threat to my health, I will be happy to accept your offer to receive the treatment, but with certain conditions – namely that:

1. You confirm in writing that I will suffer no harm.

2. Following acceptance of this, the offer must be signed by a fully qualified doctor who will take full legal and financial responsibility for any injuries occurring to myself, and/or from any interactions by authorized personnel regarding these procedures.

3. In the event that I should have to decline the offer of vaccination, please confirm that it will not compromise my position and that I will not suffer prejudice and discrimination as a result?

I would also advise that my inalienable rights are reserved.

The point is that if they CANNOT provide that information you’ve NOT refused.

 

[Michael B-C]

Case figures from Gibraltar where 100% of adults are injected. The authorities there have announced a 4 week package of measures due to an “exponential rise” that effectively cancels Christmas.

 

[Michael B-C]

Meanwhile on the other side of the world...

 

[thorbiorn]

Shamed scientists and retracted papers, the battle for science in the vaccine field
On December 8, 2020:

Dr Lyons-Weiler, research scientist, author, president and CEO of The Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge talks at a medical conference. He starts out with a rant condemning the politicisation and commercialisation of health and say's 'shame on you' to those who are holding on to the wrong opinions in the face of evidence simply because they disagree with President Trump.

"Shame on you, you're hurting people, you're hurting society, you're destroying businesses, shame on you."

He covers the history of coronavirus, the coronavirus vaccines, disease enhancement due to pathogenic priming and covers the current vaccine. He's very direct and to the point, and doesn't seem to be someone who would suffer fools gladly. Covers a lot in a short time frame.

The Wiki about Lyons-Weiler explains:

James Lyons-Weiler (born July 4, 1967)[1] is an American scientist who is the CEO of the non-profit organization Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge. He has degrees in zoology, ecology, and conservation biology, and is a former University of Pittsburgh faculty member. He has made numerous false and misleading claims about COVID-19 and vaccines.[2][3][4][5] United States Court of Federal Claims Special Master Christian J. Moran concluded in 2020 that Lyons-Weiler was "wholly unqualified to opine on the question of vaccine causation"; the decision related to a lawsuit in which Lyons-Weiler had testified claiming that a woman was injured as a result of the HPV vaccine.[2][6] His February 2020 claim that SARS-CoV-2 contains a genetic sequence proving that the virus was probably engineered in a laboratory was discredited by researchers and fact-checkers.[7][8]

"Researchers and fact-checkers" or gatekeepers of the narrative? We will return to Lyons-Weiler, but first there was on July 3, 2021, a comment regarding the work by Harald Walach:

It is impressive how Wikipedia started to stigmatize academics that are not aligned with the mainstream (almost in realtime). There was a paper (coauthored) by Harald Walach about the safety of the vaccines in the context of the European Medicines Agency and the Dutch National Register ADR databases that was retracted yesterday. Never mind his whole career, his non-obedience must be punished:

Harald Walach: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And a comment:

They are going after everyone who will not stay silent on the Con-19 Operation. Even those who have peer-reviewed papers.

RETRACTED: Walach et al. The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy. Vaccines 2021, 9, 693

The journal retracts the article, The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy [...]

www.mdpi.com

It turns out Lyons-Weiler edits a journal, Science, Public Health Policy & the Law which Pierre linked to on November 8, 2021:

A recent per-reviewed paper indicates that at least 81.9% (≥ 104/127) of pregnant women experienced spontaneous abortion following mRNA exposure before 20 weeks, and 92.3% (96/104) of spontaneous abortions occurred before 13 weeks’ gestation:

Science, Public Health Policy and the Law | Peer-reviewed Journal

Science-based knowledge, not narrative-dictated knowledge, is the goal of WSES, and we will work to make sure that only objective knowledge is used in the formation of medical standards of care and public health policies.

www.publichealthpolicyjournal.com

For comments on that paper: Brock AR and S Thornley. 2021. Rapid Communication Spontaneous Abortions and Policies on COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Use During Pregnancy. Science, Public Health Policy & the Law 4:130-143, see the above post by Pierre and the subsequent responses.

In that same issue: Clinical & Translation Science - Volume 3 one finds that the authors that faced problems earlier in the year, Walach et al. have been published:

Harald Walach, Rainer J. Klement, and Wouter Aukema. 2021. The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations - Should We Rethink the Policy? Sci, Publ Health Pol & Law 3:87-99. (Newly and Independently Peer-Reviewed (Single-Blind, 3 Reviewers).

However the process of publication was not smooth since two reviewers resigned from the journal. The details are found in the editorial which defends reason and the scientific method, as it was once applied more unencumbered by financial and ideological interests. The editor, Lyons-Weiler, explains the politics behind the trend that papers get retracted. He holds that the excess retraction of papers amounts to book burning, the stifling of scientific discussion and the destruction of knowledge. He also reflects on the way research on the effects of vaccines and medicine is done, how results are interpreted and opinions expressed. Likewise, he claims that too often the interpretations and opinions are then later hunted down by the opposition in order to force a retraction. His point is summarized in the first two paragraphs, while the details and arguments follow later.

Editorial If Vaccine Adverse Events Tracking Systems Do Not Support Causal Inference, then “Pharmacovigilance” Does Not Exist James Lyons-Weiler, PhD Editor-in-Chief
There are two messages from those who hold appointed offices or other influential positions in Public Health on long-term vaccine safety. The first message is that long-term randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled clinical trials are not necessary for the long-term study of vaccine safety because we have “pharmacovigilance”; i.e. longterm post-market safety surveillance that is supported by widely accessible, passive vaccine adverse events tracking systems.

The second message is that any use of those very same vaccine adverse events tracking systems that leads to the inference or conclusion that vaccines might cause serious adverse events or death is unsupported by such systems.

When the philosopher Sir Karl Popper described his demarcation between science and non-science, he introduced hypothetico-deduction as a compromise between inferences that use induction — that is, those that seek generalization — and inferences that use deduction — that is, those that we can make about the data that we have in hand.

In his formulation of his formal calculus of hypothetical deduction, Popper described that the appropriate way to seek generalizable knowledge using science is to pose a hypothesis and think of the most critical test that could, in principle, falsify (i.e. disprove) the hypothesis of interest if that hypothesis was, in fact, false.

After conducting the critical test of the hypothesis of interest, a scientist should then examine the evidence provided by the test and interpret the hypothesis and the background knowledge about the hypothesis in light of the new evidence from the critical test that could have demolished the hypothesis if it was, in fact, false.

Under the Popperian model of science, hypotheses that survive critical tests were and are considered to be corroborated. According to Popper, the degree to which the corroboration can be attributed is a function of how surprised the scientist conducting a critical test is to see the unexpected result (that a hypothesis survived a critical test). Of course, the introduction of null hypothesis significance testing allows us to focus on challenging the null hypothesis instead of the alternative hypothesis. Science is not the best argument that can explain the data; it’s the process of approaching the truth asymptotically, with ever-increasing accuracy, by getting rid of possibilities that do not survive bona fide critical tests. 82

The key to the success of hypothetico-deduction, upon which virtually all science is now thought to be conducted, was the insistence that the test being applied to threaten the hypothesis was, in fact, a truly critical test of that hypothesis and not a weak test. Popper warned us that weak tests, which cannot truly jeopardize a particular hypothesis by potentially falsifying said hypothesis, can only provide weak corroboration.

When those seeking support for public health initiatives, such as a new vaccination program, offer evidence that long-term vaccine safety studies are well in hand due to the possibility of detecting adverse events that happened following vaccination, they are either (a) unaware that the vaccine adverse events tracking systems upon which they are basing their confidence about society’s ability to detect and track vaccine adverse events are alleged to be unable to be used to infer causal links between health outcomes and vaccination exposure, or (b) participating in a disinformation campaign to end scrutiny over the absence of properly controlled long-term randomized clinical trials to assess longterm vaccine safety. Neither of these is sufficient empirical basis for the knowledge claim of longterm safety.

Either way, the authors of the latest paper in Science, Public Health Policy, & the Law (Walach et al.) have been caught, like grist in the mill, in a nonsensical, convoluted torture session in which their detractors have broken all logic and reason on the question of how society renders causal inference between vaccine exposure and serious illness or death.

These authors studied publicly available data and reported a unique and potentially useful risk/benefit analysis that is routinely used in the assessment of the value that a drug will add to the treatment of a clinical disease. They attempted to calculate the number needed to vaccinate, inspired by the number needed to treat. The purported raison d'être of the data resource they used is pharmacovigilance: it exists to provide data for post-market, long-term vaccine safety studies.

As a result of the first publication of their results, a number of scientists on the editorial board of the publishing journal resigned in protest because the authors of the study had determined, in their interpretation of their analysis of the data collected to detect vaccine risk signals, that the vaccine caused specific health outcomes. The scientists on the board who disagreed with the authors claimed that the reason why they resigned was that vaccines did not cause the deaths that were reported to the vaccine adverse event tracking system.

The resigning editorial board members’ knowledge claim is that no deaths have occurred due to the vaccination program. As helpful as that claim might be to a prescribed narrative, it is not based on empirical evidence, and it is, therefore, unwarranted.

From a Popperian view of science, one can see the fatal flaw in the editorial board members’ knowledge claim: if, as they insist, passive vaccine adverse events tracking systems cannot test the hypothesis of causality, then how can editorial board members, resigning or otherwise, know that the events were NOT caused by the vaccine?

Reports that I’ve read tell me that the resigning editorial board members were epidemiologists and virologists. It is worth noting that neither category of scientist is clinically trained to determine the cause of death in any patient. Epidemiological correlation — and the absence of such correlation or association — is a weak test of causality. It requires forensic pathologists to determine cause of death. The amount of time it takes for victims of vaccines to acquire a ruling on causality in the United States National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, based on debates over highly granular details of evidence in support of or countering the hypothesis of causality, is befuddling. In some cases, the debates between experts, mediated by special masters, can last over 10 years. This pace stands in stark contrast to the lightning — perhaps miraculous, perhaps magical — speed with which physicians involved in short-term randomized COVID-19 vaccine trials determined the non-causality of the deaths that occurred following exposure to the first-in-human experimental mRNA vaccines.

I cannot tell other journals how to run their operations; however, I can report that it is the policy of Science, Public Health Policy and the Law not to retract papers on the basis of mere differences in the interpretation of studies that are adequately designed, adequately executed and appropriately presented. We also do not bias our contents to fit a prescribed narrative.

Authors’ points in the discussion and conclusions made in scientific studies are suitably placed in those sections for a reason: they are challenges to other scientists to prove or disprove — i.e. test and potentially falsify or corroborate — such knowledge claims. There must be room for disagreement in science; otherwise, science does not exist.

It is sad to bear witness to the fact that science has degenerated into a war against unwanted and inconvenient results, conclusions and interpretations via the process of post-publication retraction for issues other than fraud, grave error in execution, and plagiarism. The weaponization of the process of retraction of scientific studies is well underway, and it induces a bias that could be called “retraction bias”, or, in the case in which a few persons haunt journals in search of studies that cast doubt on their commercial products, a “ghouling bias”, which leads to biased systematic reviews and warped meta-analyses.

It has become altogether too common for studies that find evidence of risk of vaccination of any kind to end up retracted from journals that one can only presume had already used the peer-review process to put the studies through proper jeopardy (Easy et al, 2021).

Post-publication retraction for mere differences of opinion expressed as interpretation is a form of weak double jeopardy with strong (negative) consequences to knowledge: when journals retract studies that have been conducted and have survived peer review due to prescribed conclusions, knowledge suffers. In the face of new results that challenge our existing background knowledge, Popper would have us update our background knowledge, not destroy new findings and the careers of objective scientists. Viewed on the basis of a reader’s difference of interpretation, journals that retract to maintain a prescribed narrative are participating in the etiological equivalent of bookburning.

Rage-quitting is not Science.

In the absence of reliable and credible contrary evidence, journals, journal editors and journal editorial boards must remain relatively agnostic as to their opinion on how authors have interpreted a study’s results. If they have truly credible evidence that is inconsistent with the interpretation of the data at hand, they should proceed in a manner that leads to advocacy for a position of interpretation that they themselves hold via peer-reviewed correspondence. The very best vehicle for this interchange is in editorials or in letters to the editor via rational discourse. When readers and other participants in the journal find points of sincere disagreement, the editor should entertain rational, open discourse on matters of interpretation. This rational discourse is how science has classically been moved forward, not through anonymous letters leading to retraction — and neither through emotion-driven resignations of editorial board members. If vaccine safety science is to advance, methodological advances such as the use of “number needed to vaccinate” and non-standard methods of analysis are needed to break the stronghold of the “vaccines are safe” bias that has hobbled scientists from detecting and reporting risk issues with vaccines. This is a stoutly pro-science view.

Since 2015, as I embarked on a journey into the science of public health, I have been disappointed to find that corporations who develop vaccines and have a vested interests in the profitability of vaccines, and regulatory agency members who, it turns out, also have financial vested interests in vaccines, routinely partake in science-like activities. In doing so, they eschew the products of the Enlightenment: science and reason, and they are causing a steady decay in the public’s trust in Science as a process. The public should not confuse their mistrust of corrupted and captured institutions with a mistrust of Science. The offending individuals in these institutions can hardly be said to be doing science: They repeatedly bias interpretations to minimize the public’s perception of risk; they cherry-pick results to include and exclude in vaccine studies; and they have not been forthright with key information, including the risk of fetal death from vaccination during pregnancy, the risk of infection following influenza vaccination, the risk of autoimmunity following vaccination, and the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders following vaccination.

In stark contrast to those who use these practiced and codified corrupting exercises in tobacco and glyphosate science, an informed public that examines how post-market vaccine safety studies have been conducted actually rally and protest for objective, rational science. For all of the ill that the year brought us, the events of 2020 also ushered in a new school of thought, which I have christened ``Popular Rationalism". It is from the perspective of continued and powerful calls for objectivity in vaccine safety science that we now proceed.

Our decision to publish the Walach et al. study was made after thorough independent, blind review by three professionals who are more than adequately trained and skilled to appropriately execute the analysis and interpretation of data in retrospective clinical studies.

This decision was not undertaken lightly, nor was it undertaken without due consultation on the processes and policies that led to the retraction from the previous journal.

The issue of determining causality from passive vaccine adverse events tracking systems is not an easy one; even in our review of this study for publication in this journal, there was not a consensus among the reviewers on agreement or disagreement with the authors' interpretation.

There was, however, consensus among the reviewers on an elementary but critically important point: It is logical to conclude that since passive vaccine adverse event tracking systems do not lend themselves well to testing hypotheses of causality, they do not provide the opportunity to design and conduct sufficiently critical tests of causality, and therefore a replacement system is needed.

Vaccinologists act as if the process of collecting the data using a passive system destroys the causal link between vaccine exposure and poor health outcomes and death. In reality, the causal link exists, or it does not. If it does, the act of collating the data using a passive system that then only satisfies temporal association and statistical association or correlation does not destroy the causal link; it merely makes it difficult to ascertain causality. The lack of association thereby does not indemnify the vaccine exposure. A positive association, however, should be heeded; every single gene discovery made in the decades of gene association studies started with a mere association link between genetic variation in people and specific conditions or traits. Follow-up functional analyses studies then further tested causality in some but not all cases. Every time you read “Scientists Discover a Gene That Causes…” you were most likely reading association studies. The associations that were found were reported and acted upon; they were not ignored.

Imagine an Automobile Accident Adverse Events Reporting System in which victims of car accidents could report the effects of their personal, first-hand experience in a car accident. We could then download and analyze the data using association analyses. Would the act of collecting the data destroy the causal link? No. It would obfuscate the discovery of causality, but it would not prevent it.

US FDA recently approved Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for people sixteen years of age and older. They did so without holding the required advisory committee meeting. Acting Director Janet Woodcock must be held responsible for removing that particular safeguard. The purpose of the approval was to satisfy the requirements of the policy needs of allowing mandates (in the US, mandates for vaccines only approved for emergency use are not allowed). The realization that companies imposing mandates were sitting ducks for lawsuits for coercing individuals into human subjects research was an oversight by Dr. Anthony Fauci, who decreed unilaterally that companies could mandate or dismiss. The fact that FDA skipped the step has led to intense scrutiny, with many questions opening up about disconnect between earlier claims of “safe and effective” and the fact that ongoing studies had not been completed. It looks as if FDA’s approval was designed to satisfy what was considered to be a required policy (mandates) instead of evidence-based rendering of a policy position. This, of course, is not new; last month, FDA approved of an Alzheimer’s drug after ignoring input from an advisory board. Three of the board members resigned in protest. We can expect that FDA’s approval of Pfizer’s commercially branded COVID-19 vaccine will not stand.

It is not Walach et al.’s fault that a system capable of providing data that can be used to reliably render an inference of causality is not easily available to the public or the scientific community. The scientific community, however, must now stand up and call for the development of one that is suitable to detect risk.

What would such a system look like? In my view, such a system would have to require mandatory reporting by physicians, with penalties for non-reporting. Physicians should be required to report health events that follow vaccination whether they themselves suspect causality or not. Such a system would allow specific submitted records to be checked at random and verified against medical records to allow assessment of reporting reliability. Such a system would also, of course, allow the participation of non-vaccinating patients to provide a control or comparison group. Such a system would collect critical demographic and clinical data elements from all reportees. It would collect potential covariates which could be tested as confounders not as variables that explain away causality (they don’t), but instead as vaccine adverse events risk factors, and an ideal system would allow onboard machine learning objective prediction models to be optimized and tested for generalizability.

A universal flaw with vaccine safety studies conducted by people with a vested interest in vaccines is the gross oversimplification assumption that all covariates are confounders. An ideal system would allow the use of such covariates as co-risk predictors along with vaccination status.

A machine learning–based prediction model optimizer analysis module would allow the refinement of model parameter selection, model selection, and allow for tests of the generalizability of the performance evaluation of models that would predict who is at most risk of vaccine injury or death.

While causality matters in determination of liability, the beauty of machine learning–based prediction modeling is that the question of causality becomes moot. In the quest to reduce human pain and suffering, causality is not even the correct hypothesis to test. Even if only correlated variables that are non-causal are useful in predicting adverse outcomes of the application of a medical procedure that may be intolerable to some people, the models can be made immediately clinically actionable, systemically and reliably removing people from harm’s way, ending the social discord between those who promote universal vaccines and those who report that they have experienced personal injury, or injury or death in a loved one, following vaccination.

This system would also, of course, allow a more reasonable analysis to be undertaken on the question of causality. However, such a system would still be vastly inferior to the requirement of the use of long-term prospective randomized inert placebo–controlled clinical trials to monitor vaccine safety and risk.

It is with these concepts and hopes in mind that I founded and launched this journal. To date, articles that appear are all present by invitation and are rigorously reviewed by our blind review process. This is also true of the Walach et al. analysis.

We seek ethical, non-governmental, noncorporate underwriters who have no vested interest in the outcome of public debates involving vaccines so we can better explore the application of popular rationalism to questions of Science, Public Health Policy and the Law. By definition, journal underwriters will have no say in the publication policies or direction of this journal into perpetuity. They will, however, have our and humanity’s eternal gratitude for empowering objective science.

It is via this mechanism that Popular Rationalism will help society return objectivity to science and inject rational discourse into public health, leading to evidence-based policies and, only when absolutely necessary, evidence-based laws that respect personal experience with vaccine risk.

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD Editor-in-Chief

Addendum
As this was going into production, we learned that the US FDA has approved the marketed version of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for people over 16 years of age. These individuals did this without the required advisory committee meeting — a month after they were skewered in the media for approval of a drug for Alzheimer’s disease that has limited, if any, efficacy.

The stunning move by FDA decision on approval of the Pfizer vaccine was made by ignoring the massive number of post-market safety events reported to VAERS. Many physicians see this as FDA acting on <1% of the safety information available, and they note that Americans are being injured and killed by the vaccines. This is intolerable — and the entire HHS should undergo Congressional review.

We need a viable public health system that does not engage in profit incentive but instead uses science, logic and reason in the studies of what is causing poor health and killing people. A decentralized plan exists to replace the CDC (Plan B); perhaps now we need a similar plan to replace the FDA.

Citations
Elisha E, Guetzkow J, Shir-Raz Y & Ronel N (2021). Retraction of scientific papers: The case of vaccine research, Critical Public Health, DOI: 10.1080/09581596.2021.1878109

Malone R, Nass M, et al., 2021. FDA Covid Vaccine “Approval” – Dr. Robert Malone has compiled a laundry list of concerns from multiple sources regarding the validity of the socalled approval. (Accessed 8/26/2021.) Anthrax Vaccine -- posts by Meryl Nass, M.D. fda-covid-vaccine-approval-dr-robert.html

For a commentary on the totalitarian developments in the US by the same author, even if it concerns many other areas than just Covid:

It's Happening Here
Public Health has taken over every part of government - and they are following Hitler's blueprint. The evidence is available, for all to see.

 

[Michael B-C]

Denis Rancourt, in partnership with two other PHDs, has just published a landmark paper entitled:

Nature of the COVID-era public health disaster in the USA, from all-cause mortality and socio-geo-economic and climatic data

From the abstract:

We investigate why the USA, unlike Canada and Western European countries, has a sustained exceedingly large mortality in the “COVID-era” occurring from March 2020 to present (October 2021).

Here is the summary - with the best last paragraph takeaway I've seen in a scientific COVID paper.

Therefore, a pandemic did not occur; but an unprecedented systemic aggression against large pools of vulnerable and disadvantaged residents of the USA did occur.

Summary (P4-6)

We studied all-cause mortality (ACM) by time (week, year) 2013-2021 for the USA, resolved by state, or by age group, in relation to several socio-geo-economic and climatic variables (poverty, obesity, climatic temperature, population density, geographical region, and summer heatwaves).

We calculate “excess” mortality, by calendar-year or (summer to summer) cycle-year or selected ranges of weeks, as the week-by-week ACM above a summer baseline (SB) ACM, which has a monotonic and linear variation on the decadal timescale, 2013-2019, extrapolated into 2021.

Unlike Canada and Western European countries, the USA has a dramatic anomalous increase in both ACM by year and “excess” ACM by year in 2020 and 2021, which started immediately following the World Health Organization (WHO) 11 March 2020 declaration of a pandemic. Nothing of this magnitude occurs in other nations. The USA’s yearly mortality in 2020-2021 is equal to (2020) and greater than (2021) the mortality by year occurring in its domestic population just after the Second World War.

Regarding geo-temporal variations in ACM by week (ACM/w) and in excess (above-SB) ACM by week (ACM-SB/w), we find that there are two distinct periods: the “COVID-era” (March 2020 to present), and the “pre-COVID-era” (prior to March 2020). Normal epidemiological variations occur in the pre-COVID-era, as has been observed for more than a century, in all mid-latitude Northern hemisphere jurisdictions having reliable data; whereas there is unprecedented state-wise jurisdictional and regional geographical heterogeneity in ACM by time in the COVID-era, which is contrary to theoretical pandemic behaviour caused by a new virus for which there is no prior natural immunity
in the population.

COVID-era time-integrated seasonal and yearly features of ACM-SB/w significantly correlate with poverty (PV), obesity (OB), and climatic temperature (Tav), by state; and differ by age group. The correlations account for the state-to-state heterogeneity, with notable outliers in one feature (March-June 2020) of the ACM-SB/w; and such correlations do not occur in pre-COVID-era cycle-year excess mortality. The co-associations of excess deaths with PV, OB and Tav occur only in the COVID-era. We show that normal (pre-COVID) excess (winter season) deaths — largely attributed to viral respiratory diseases occurring in the elderly — occur irrespective of PV, OB and climate, and that there is solely a correlation to age structure of the population in the state.

An example of a co-correlation is the relation between the summer-2020 excess mortality normalized by population (smp1/pop) and the product of OB and PV (OB.PV), state-by-state (see article for details):

A similar large excess of deaths occurred in the summer 2021, which is also strongly co-correlated with poverty, obesity and regional climate. In addition, we showed that these 2020 and 2021 summer mortalities and massive fall-winter-2020-2021 mortality, unlike with viral respiratory disease deaths, occur in younger people, over broad age categories.

In the correlations that we identified, the 2020 and 2021 summer excess (above-SB) mortalities extend to zero values for sufficiently small values of poverty, obesity or summer temperatures, or their combinations, such as the product of poverty and obesity.

We also found, for example, that the onset of the COVID-era is associated with an increase in deaths of 15-34 year olds to a new plateau in ACM/w (approximately 400 more deaths per week), which does not return to normal over the period studied.

The behaviour of all-cause mortality in the COVID-era is irreconcilable with a pandemic caused by a new virus for which there is no prior natural immunity in the population.

On the contrary, we concluded that the COVID-era deaths are of two types:

• A large narrow peak (in ACM/w) occurring immediately after the WHO declaration of a pandemic apparently caused by the aggressive novel government and medical responses that were applied in certain specific state jurisdictions, against sick elderly populations (34 states do not significantly exhibit this feature).

• Summer-2020, fall-winter-2020-2021, and summer-2021 peaks and excesses (in ACM/w), which co-correlate with poverty, obesity and regional climate, presumably caused by chronic psychological stress induced by the government and medical responses, which massively disrupted lives and society, and affected broad age groups, as young as 15 year olds.

Therefore, a pandemic did not occur; but an unprecedented systemic aggression against large pools of vulnerable and disadvantaged residents of the USA did occur. We interpret that the persistent chronic psychological stress induced by the societal and economic transformation of the COVID-era converted the existing societal (poverty), public-health (obesity) and hot-climate risk factors into deadly agents, largely acting together, with devastating population-level consequences, far beyond the deaths that would have occurred from the pre-COVID-era background of pre-existing risk factors.

For those who like their papers meaty - it's 170 plus pages long - the PDF is attached below. For those who don't here's Denis Rancourt discussing his findings with The Last American Vagabond.

 

[Zee Ley]

I have found the following on Telegram some time ago, and it might be another strategy to avoid the jab if pressure at the workplace grew, aside from that one suggested by Michael. It's mainly a strategy of "playing along" without outrightly refusing the jab, by demanding certain information from one's employer as a condition (conditional acceptance):

From a lawyer:

If you are being forced to Vax in order to keep your job, here’s a great way to handle it. (Conditional acceptance)

The secret is NOT to refuse it.

“I write with regard to the matter of potential covid vaccine and my desire to be fully informed and appraised of ALL facts before going ahead. I’d be most grateful if you could please provide the following information, in accordance with statutory legal requirements.”:

1. Can you please advise the approved legal status of any vaccine and if it is experimental?

2. Can you please provide details and assurances that the vaccine has been fully, independently and rigorously tested against control groups and the subsequent outcomes of those tests?

3. Can you please advise the entire list of contents of the vaccine I am to receive and if any are toxic to the body?

4. Can you please fully advise of all the adverse reactions associated with this vaccine since it’s introduction?

5. Can you please confirm that the vaccine you are advocating is NOT experimental mRNA gene altering therapy?

6. Can you please confirm that I will not be under any duress from yourselves as my employers, in compliance with the Nuremberg Code?

7. Can you please advise me of the likely risk of fatality, should I be unfortunate to contract Covid 19 and the likelihood of recovery?

8. Can you please advise me if I were to experience any adverse reactions is the manufacturer of the vaccine liable? If the manufacturer isn’t liable will the company I’m currently employed with with be responsible & liable as it is their request that I have the vaccine in order to carry on my employment?

Once I have received the above information in full and I am satisfied that there is NO threat to my health, I will be happy to accept your offer to receive the treatment, but with certain conditions – namely that:

1. You confirm in writing that I will suffer no harm.

2. Following acceptance of this, the offer must be signed by a fully qualified doctor who will take full legal and financial responsibility for any injuries occurring to myself, and/or from any interactions by authorized personnel regarding these procedures.

3. In the event that I should have to decline the offer of vaccination, please confirm that it will not compromise my position and that I will not suffer prejudice and discrimination as a result?

I would also advise that my inalienable rights are reserved.

The point is that if they CANNOT provide that information you’ve NOT refused.

There is a problem with this tactic. If employer is not a medical institution they can simply refer to emergency authorisation or other crappy governmental rules for you to read. In this case you will have to question CDC, NHS etc. ... with the predictable outcome. At the meantime employer will take disciplinary actions and sack you... For example in best interests of other employees health.

IMO the employer will be much more discouraged to demand anything from you if you ask them to sign a liability for possible vaccination damages to your health.