I'm certainly glad that this article was written. I started at the top and read for a minute or two. I shall waste no further time reading it; the lack of a control group, and the lack of a true placebo -- well, that was enough for me. I'm done.
Of course, I was skeptical from the start, because the clinical trials for both Pfizer's and Moderna's original COVID-19 vaccines were designed for massive fraud. The instructions to principal investigators about testing subjects for COVID-19, and the 3410 "suspected but not confirmed" cases of COVID-19 among trial subjects . . . Yeah, no. The whole clinical trial show was just theater, crappy theater at that.
Anybody who still believes mRNA jabs are a good idea -- well, good luck, chums. You been had and you about to be had again.
once bitten, twice shy? its been a saying for decades if not centuries. I wonder where that saying orignated from....? Probably a prior heist on our freedoms, natural health and our wealth... Spanish flu which was a regular FLU...or any of their wars? or a ponzi scheme or or or. The list of deplorable actions on the part of government or corporations (they are basically the same thing) over the centuries...continues on as we breathe in toxic air, polluted water and even more toxic food.
It's difficult to draw any significant conclusions regarding safety or efficacy from this carefully designed trial. In other words it's a junk study, a box tick affair by all accounts and should be treated as such. Turtles all the way down.
As for class switching, effects on interferon signalling, tumour suppressors, lncRNAs, CD4+ & CD8+, PD-1, miRNAs and mitochondrial apoptosis.... Yeah.
This is one is the steamiest piles ever, even for the modeRNA clowns.
Half the challenge is comparing something that may kill you to something else that may do the same, just not as quickly.
Yes, the study really should have added active monitoring of immunoglobulins and troponins and D-dimers and the other stuff you mentioned, given the known adverse effects of the first series of jabs. Relying on subject self-reporting or checking into hospital is not good enough.
Thanks; what amazes me is that they can still find 11,471 people, in 2024, to participate in this trial to begin with. Are people paid very much to subject themselves to this nonsense?
One of the *inclusion* criteria is that subject MUST have completed a primary series jab of the first generation. Ie the brainwashed will gladly participate to advance the cause.
However anyone who had a serious adverse reaction to the first jabs (even if they or their doctors didnt/refused to recognize it as such) probably would fit the *exclusion* criteria due to their condition or treatments they are taking. The healthy "vaccinee" bias that James noted would be even more applicable here because these people would be more likely to have caught Covid (see Cleveland Clinic study) in the past 14 days and thus only really robust people or those with subclinical (unnoticeable) symptoms would remain eligible for this study.
Thanks; on the one hand it would seem to create a selection bias to include in the trial those who have not had adverse effects serious enough to warrant them not volunteering but on the other it seems odd that they have not noticed, either by exposure to other people's adverse reactions in their own circles or any of the research since The Product® was released, that repeated exposure to the concoction could be very dangerous. I'm thinking of spike toxicity, iGg3/4 adjustments and frame-shifted novel proteins as examples.
I wonder if they pulled the same bait and switch as in the first clinical trial where the product used changed during the trial due to manufacturing process change (resulting in added bacterial DNA plasmids) and whether batch quality is/was monitored.
I think that trials also should do tests to reveal early warning signs. Including tests for long term problems. This should be done by independent doctors who have the safety of the patients in mind. And these doctors should have the freedom and ability to reveal any problems to the world. There were several trial-candidates who had severe side-effects. They were attacked, censored and completely ignored.
In my own research I discovered that independent doctors had done several blood-tests right at the start. They saw: elevated D-dimer, immune system problems, stacking of red blood-cells, Z-potential problems. Over 60% of patients had these problems.
This was a clear indication that this injection was toxic for most people. And that the manufacturers did not care about safety at all.
I read that there was a U.S. doctor in the early 1900's who said that he had had 200 patients who had developed cancer. He said every one of his patients who had developed cancer had been vaccinated. He had never seen an unvaccinated person who developed cancer.
BTW, Wikipedia has a timeline showing when various human-use vaccines were developed:
How would you even define a placebo group? There is no one who rejected the original covid vaccines that would ever even slightly consider participating in one of these trials.
I'm certainly glad that this article was written. I started at the top and read for a minute or two. I shall waste no further time reading it; the lack of a control group, and the lack of a true placebo -- well, that was enough for me. I'm done.
Of course, I was skeptical from the start, because the clinical trials for both Pfizer's and Moderna's original COVID-19 vaccines were designed for massive fraud. The instructions to principal investigators about testing subjects for COVID-19, and the 3410 "suspected but not confirmed" cases of COVID-19 among trial subjects . . . Yeah, no. The whole clinical trial show was just theater, crappy theater at that.
Anybody who still believes mRNA jabs are a good idea -- well, good luck, chums. You been had and you about to be had again.
once bitten, twice shy? its been a saying for decades if not centuries. I wonder where that saying orignated from....? Probably a prior heist on our freedoms, natural health and our wealth... Spanish flu which was a regular FLU...or any of their wars? or a ponzi scheme or or or. The list of deplorable actions on the part of government or corporations (they are basically the same thing) over the centuries...continues on as we breathe in toxic air, polluted water and even more toxic food.
TheyLied. Join the campaign to Take Action and Raise Public Awareness at
www.TheyLied.ca
.
Video
https://theylied.substack.com/p/theylied-time-for-action-and-raising
.
Raise Public Awareness
https://theylied.ca/SpreadTheWord.shtml
.
Take Action
https://theylied.ca/TakeAction.shtml
.
If I may ask: Do you use a LLM to help compose some of your posts?
To help outline the scope and to clarify sections, yes.
Gotcha, thanks
Ho Hum, THe standard CORRUPT FDA WAY
No Placebo EVER.
If you haven't read it
TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN, by anonymous -- for good reason.
Thank you for your detailed appraisal.
It's difficult to draw any significant conclusions regarding safety or efficacy from this carefully designed trial. In other words it's a junk study, a box tick affair by all accounts and should be treated as such. Turtles all the way down.
As for class switching, effects on interferon signalling, tumour suppressors, lncRNAs, CD4+ & CD8+, PD-1, miRNAs and mitochondrial apoptosis.... Yeah.
This is one is the steamiest piles ever, even for the modeRNA clowns.
Half the challenge is comparing something that may kill you to something else that may do the same, just not as quickly.
Yes, the study really should have added active monitoring of immunoglobulins and troponins and D-dimers and the other stuff you mentioned, given the known adverse effects of the first series of jabs. Relying on subject self-reporting or checking into hospital is not good enough.
Thanks; what amazes me is that they can still find 11,471 people, in 2024, to participate in this trial to begin with. Are people paid very much to subject themselves to this nonsense?
One of the *inclusion* criteria is that subject MUST have completed a primary series jab of the first generation. Ie the brainwashed will gladly participate to advance the cause.
However anyone who had a serious adverse reaction to the first jabs (even if they or their doctors didnt/refused to recognize it as such) probably would fit the *exclusion* criteria due to their condition or treatments they are taking. The healthy "vaccinee" bias that James noted would be even more applicable here because these people would be more likely to have caught Covid (see Cleveland Clinic study) in the past 14 days and thus only really robust people or those with subclinical (unnoticeable) symptoms would remain eligible for this study.
Thanks; on the one hand it would seem to create a selection bias to include in the trial those who have not had adverse effects serious enough to warrant them not volunteering but on the other it seems odd that they have not noticed, either by exposure to other people's adverse reactions in their own circles or any of the research since The Product® was released, that repeated exposure to the concoction could be very dangerous. I'm thinking of spike toxicity, iGg3/4 adjustments and frame-shifted novel proteins as examples.
I wonder if they pulled the same bait and switch as in the first clinical trial where the product used changed during the trial due to manufacturing process change (resulting in added bacterial DNA plasmids) and whether batch quality is/was monitored.
I think that trials also should do tests to reveal early warning signs. Including tests for long term problems. This should be done by independent doctors who have the safety of the patients in mind. And these doctors should have the freedom and ability to reveal any problems to the world. There were several trial-candidates who had severe side-effects. They were attacked, censored and completely ignored.
In my own research I discovered that independent doctors had done several blood-tests right at the start. They saw: elevated D-dimer, immune system problems, stacking of red blood-cells, Z-potential problems. Over 60% of patients had these problems.
This was a clear indication that this injection was toxic for most people. And that the manufacturers did not care about safety at all.
Here are my references - https://thescienceanalyst.substack.com/p/the-experimental-injections-are-not
Doctors 4 covid ethics also did a study on it. With autopsies and such. And wrote a book: https://doctors4covidethics.org/mrna-vaccine-toxicity/
.
We Didn’t Need To Find The Cure For Cancer.
We Found The Cause.
.
I read that there was a U.S. doctor in the early 1900's who said that he had had 200 patients who had developed cancer. He said every one of his patients who had developed cancer had been vaccinated. He had never seen an unvaccinated person who developed cancer.
BTW, Wikipedia has a timeline showing when various human-use vaccines were developed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_vaccines
How would you even define a placebo group? There is no one who rejected the original covid vaccines that would ever even slightly consider participating in one of these trials.