"That's not how we do trials. We test for transmission AFTER the roll-out" should have been immediately followed by reference to that data.
Also, "That's not how we do trials. We test for transmission AFTER the roll-out" should have been immediately followed by a collective "Wait! What?" from the public.
If they're lying to you in this case, what makes you think they were telling the truth in any of the previous cases?
I hope that chips away even more at the reputations of government agencies and public health.
NO shocker, this - but, there's now (MORE) irrefutable proof / corroborating patents that what has sickened SO many of us (literally AND figuratively) is NOT mostly organic, or even a 'virus' - again, WHATever that ACTUALLY is (which JLW does KNOW has been MY area of focus for a half-decade and leaves me assuming a MIDDLE philosophical ground BETWEEN you, Kirsch and Tom, Stefan, Andrew inquiring as I do about their WHOLE biological role - as I've suggested of late, POSSIBLY originating as dysregulated enzymes; medially-INHERENT piezoelectrically-disruptive considerations can be nothing BUT critical ones, especially when CERTAIN countries have advanced their offensive military options BY them through ASSOCIATED 'proteonics' and similarly-efficacious WIDEscale expansion of wireless infrastructure). Nope; RATHER, synthetically-fabricated transgenic nanotechnological PARASITES (then, WHY precisely both Ivermectin & hydroxychloroquine - among OTHER anti-parasitics, ARE so useful; Fauci DID broadcast the introduction OF as much 3 years ago come December 4th) such AS Charles River Analytics propagated at DoD's behest and with MIT/RE's, Harvard's convicted Lieber / Gates Foundation illicit aid, black-budget 'dark' money.....
Isn't it also correct that subjects with natural immunity were omitted from the trials? Thus, a credible randomized controlled trial would not have taken place?
Vinay Prasad and others are exposing some of the problems in medicine and giving an opportunity for debate and liberty. This is a very good thing and I think that Sensible Medicine would benefit from thoughtful comments by Lyons-Weiler and other commenters here.
I have commented about the need for education in the philosophical areas of liberty and ethics, which used to happen in high school, but now are only taught in a few colleges. Liberty and ethics weigh heavily in how science is done and against political mandates. We might want to play on Prasad's playground.
It was a bad day for the public when Pharmas made the commercial decision to outsource their Research to third parties, including animal studies. Inhouse studies and work were always under pressure to deliver as the facilities and staff were so expensive, but thorough. However having commercial and University third parties hungry for ever more business, and being arms length not under direct day-to-day management was not helptul. The FDA audits were also more difficult not having a one stop shop audit but a fragmented one.
This was my very first thought.
"That's not how we do trials. We test for transmission AFTER the roll-out" should have been immediately followed by reference to that data.
Also, "That's not how we do trials. We test for transmission AFTER the roll-out" should have been immediately followed by a collective "Wait! What?" from the public.
If they're lying to you in this case, what makes you think they were telling the truth in any of the previous cases?
I hope that chips away even more at the reputations of government agencies and public health.
NO shocker, this - but, there's now (MORE) irrefutable proof / corroborating patents that what has sickened SO many of us (literally AND figuratively) is NOT mostly organic, or even a 'virus' - again, WHATever that ACTUALLY is (which JLW does KNOW has been MY area of focus for a half-decade and leaves me assuming a MIDDLE philosophical ground BETWEEN you, Kirsch and Tom, Stefan, Andrew inquiring as I do about their WHOLE biological role - as I've suggested of late, POSSIBLY originating as dysregulated enzymes; medially-INHERENT piezoelectrically-disruptive considerations can be nothing BUT critical ones, especially when CERTAIN countries have advanced their offensive military options BY them through ASSOCIATED 'proteonics' and similarly-efficacious WIDEscale expansion of wireless infrastructure). Nope; RATHER, synthetically-fabricated transgenic nanotechnological PARASITES (then, WHY precisely both Ivermectin & hydroxychloroquine - among OTHER anti-parasitics, ARE so useful; Fauci DID broadcast the introduction OF as much 3 years ago come December 4th) such AS Charles River Analytics propagated at DoD's behest and with MIT/RE's, Harvard's convicted Lieber / Gates Foundation illicit aid, black-budget 'dark' money.....
Isn't it also correct that subjects with natural immunity were omitted from the trials? Thus, a credible randomized controlled trial would not have taken place?
This comment is off-topic, but important.
If you are interested in reforming medicine, I recommend following Sensible Medicine https://sensiblemed.substack.com/ .
Vinay Prasad and others are exposing some of the problems in medicine and giving an opportunity for debate and liberty. This is a very good thing and I think that Sensible Medicine would benefit from thoughtful comments by Lyons-Weiler and other commenters here.
I have commented about the need for education in the philosophical areas of liberty and ethics, which used to happen in high school, but now are only taught in a few colleges. Liberty and ethics weigh heavily in how science is done and against political mandates. We might want to play on Prasad's playground.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/#LibeFreeSpee
It was a bad day for the public when Pharmas made the commercial decision to outsource their Research to third parties, including animal studies. Inhouse studies and work were always under pressure to deliver as the facilities and staff were so expensive, but thorough. However having commercial and University third parties hungry for ever more business, and being arms length not under direct day-to-day management was not helptul. The FDA audits were also more difficult not having a one stop shop audit but a fragmented one.