Thank you for all your excellent posts Jikkyleaks. For me, this one is the best!
My background is in Pharmacology (PhD). I’m now retired but I worked in Big Pharma R&D so I know a fair bit about pre-clinical, clinical & regulatory affairs. I’ve been sceptical of the Covid narrative from early in 2020 and follow your posts avidly, because I think you are bang on the money. I am simply horrified by the corruption of science which has been exposed through the Covid debacle (but hope some good may arise from this exposé).
When the vaccine RCT results were announced in Dec ‘20 we could see that the Kaplan Meier plots looked dramatic. If you didn’t know better, they almost look like dose/response curves or close correlations in a regression analysis. But, as you say, when we drill down into the protocols we can see that they are just “bean counts” with time, created by those who decide what the “”beans” are, and control how they are counted.
I note that the vaccine is still approved in the FDA Letters of Authorisation, for the “PREVENTION of Covid 19 disease”, because that was the only endpoint for which the vaccine was supposedly “proved” efficacious by being statistically significantly different between placebo & vax in the original RCTs. Everything else pivots off the original RCTs including more recent trials which use antibodies as surrogate efficacy endpoints.
We knew from early in 2021 that the vaccines didn’t PREVENT Covid 19 disease but the public was confused (& still is confused) by the official narrative that this was due to rare “breakthrough” cases or “variants”. The public still believe the vaccines reduce disease severity even though the RCTs never proved this.
My son is a GP who was vaccinated in Feb/Mar ‘21. He & 5 friends (all vaccinated at slightly different times & places in Scotland over Jun/Jul ‘21) ALL got Covid after a weekend together in July ‘21. At this point I knew the vaccines didn’t work. But this experience also made me think the trial was probably fraudulent. How likely was it that Pfizer could only find 8 Covid cases/~20k vaccinated in their 2 month trial but I knew 6/6 vaccinated Covid cases in one weekend? Since then, almost all vaccinated people I know have had Covid and some of them, more than once.
It is totally dishonest for CDC/Public health to claim that the “vaccines work” because the RCTs on which they achieved Approval defined getting (even 1 mild symptom of PCR +ve) Covid as LACK of efficacy of the test substance (ie “vaccine” or placebo). So the endpoint that was used to say that the vaccine didn’t work is now being used to say the vaccine does work. Hearing credulous celebrities thanking the vaccine for their mild symptoms is super-annoying!
As you say, we all get caught up in trying to navigate this maze of data and flat out propaganda so it’s easy to get distracted by the ARR/RRR debate (though I would say one thing about the (fake) ARR was that it was so low, it didn’t really fit with the “raging pandemic” narrative). The bottom line for me is that the “vaccine” is approved for “PREVENTION of C19 disease” - something it clearly FAILS to do. So the FDA Authorisation Letter is based on a False Claim.
Call me a bitter pessimist, but what now? We can scream fraud all day and the morons plugged into the propaganda 24/7 don't care, the MSM liars don't care, the white sorcerers in their Harma castles don't care, most of our 'elected officials' don't care (a few gems do- thank you to those exiled and demonised few) and most of all, judicial systems hardly seem to care (excepting a few interesting wins in the USA).
Thanks Ark, in any case. I know you mean well. I know it's useful to point out how absurd our situation is, how deep the damnation goes. If only the world had ears to hear.
I read your text only, since I am lowly peasant no need for me to follow up all the links. Far easier to simply reject all things from the medical profession. Thanks for your work.
I'm no scientist and some of this is above my pay grade but I get the gist of it.
If the results were actually based on a "95% reduction in the chance of testing positive for Covid by a RCR test" what was the number of cycles used in the test? I am told that by increasing the cycles you can get almost any result you want. Isn't this an issue as well?
So we know that all the claims of efficacy were based on PCR positives only. How do we know if all the PCR testing undertaken at Pearl River was from subjects with symptoms suggestive of Covid? If a positive test comes from an asymptomatic individual, then that would not be evidence of a reduction in symptomatic illness. So we need to know if all the PCR testing they conducted was from symptomatic subjects.
Conversely, they report 3410 cases where there were indeed symptoms suggestive of Covid infection, but apparently no PCR confirmation. Why not? Did the dog eat the results?
The claims of efficacy were based on 81 positive PCR's for treatment and 873 positive PCR's for placebo. For a total 951 positives. Yet we have the other 3410 suspected cases with no result!
I'm not sure if the actual primary endpoint was reduction in symptomatic illness or reduction in PCR positives. Because they are not the same thing. Reduction in symptomatic illness might be clinically meaningful. But reduction in PCR positives is not clinically meaningful.
In any event, it's all a complete mess....
Incidentally in the Moderna trial; as far as toxicity goes, there were 16.5% solicited systemic Grade 3 or Grade 4 SAE's in the vax group, as opposed to 3.7% in placebo. Any SAE's graded 3-5 are serious. "Grade 3 events are serious and interfere with a person’s ability to do basic things like eat or get dressed. Grade 3 events may also require medical intervention. Grade 4 events are usually severe enough to require hospitalization." (Grade 5 is death, of course.)
It's hard to imagine that you could ethically administer to many millions of well people (often via the employment of coercion) a medical intervention that, in the clinical trial, resulted in 16.5% serious systemic adverse events. How can anyone describe serious adverse events as 'very rare', when in that Moderna trial they occurred at an incidence of 16.5%!
If they had total control of the PCR samples they could easily have engineered that roughly 14 day window that was instrumental in faking efficacy during the rollout.
Brilliant article. Even though I was aware that any PCR test is bogus and not a true measurement of anything, I still used the ARR argument.... Even taking the ARR at face value was enough to convince me that the shot wouldn’t work.... but you are right, it is a distraction. Thank you.
Jan 19, 2023·edited Jan 19, 2023Liked by Dr Ah Kahn Syed
But what about the sentence immediately following the highlighted bit"Suspected COVID19 cases
that occured within 7 days of any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine group vs 287 in the placebo group."That's pretty damning .Clearly within the 7 days post vaccination , you were more likely to get COVID if you received the vaccine than if you received the placebo.
There were no proper trials because the injections were not proper pharmaceutical products. That is the main point.
"DOD and Pfizer agents had means, motive and opportunity, through OTA contracts, to personally ensure that
:no valid clinical trials would be conducted,
:no valid clinical data would be collected and analyzed, and
:all scientific evidence of product toxicity would be removed, altered, suppressed, falsified, destroyed, discredited or otherwise disappeared, by anyone involved anywhere in the pretend clinical trials process.
In other words, the FDA’s decisions about products manufactured by Pfizer and other DOD contractors were made long before anyone in America had ever heard of Covid-19. The clinical trials were done to support the psychological part of the military operation; the scientific validity and regulatory compliance of the trials was irrelevant".
Wanted to draw your attention to the twitter thread below- the longest thread I've ever seen- 81 entries. In the event it gets scrubbed there is an additional link.
It is from someone who worked within the NHS confirming how the hospitals lied about cause of death to create illusion of "COVID pandemic."
All of this needs to be verified and sourced though the story comports with what happened in the US and certainly elsewhere.
"Before Covid, four types of pneumonia added together were the highest cause of death in the UK. In a newly implemented Medical Examiner System to certify deaths, the Medical Examiner was certifying all types of pneumonia deaths as covid-19 deaths, a former Director of End-of-Life Care has said.
On Saturday, Sai, a former NHS Director of End-of-Life Care, wrote a Twitter thread which, amongst other things, gave a personal account of the changes to the system of reporting deaths implemented in the NHS."
Please clarify, the quote from the NEJM is "a 95% reduction in the chance of testing positive for COVID by a PCR test conducted at Pfizer's laboratory in Pearl River". Where does this quote come from? "Participants were followed for safety and for the development of symptomatic COVID-19"? Is it the same paper? Or are both from Pfizer's report? Are they addressing the same thing or not? In other words, was the end point the PCR result and the follow-up for symptomatic COVID or were they suggesting that the endpoint was symptomatic COVID when in fact it was just the PCR result and then only from their own lab?
Has anyone done a comparable analysis of Moderna? I recall a similar analysis (of Pfizer) like this by a group in Canada, but never Moderna or J&J. Just finished Turtles all the Way Down and now believe that a fair number of of products in this market are straight up fraudulent.
☹️Thank you for all your hard work. I feel like there will never be a recognition of all this. However, I think you have saved people from more harm as I won’t be getting anymore shots, neither will my children or extended family.
Another big red flag that put me off taking this detritus was the first "rare" breakthrough case 2 weeks after the first injection was served up here in the UK plc.
Thank you for all your excellent posts Jikkyleaks. For me, this one is the best!
My background is in Pharmacology (PhD). I’m now retired but I worked in Big Pharma R&D so I know a fair bit about pre-clinical, clinical & regulatory affairs. I’ve been sceptical of the Covid narrative from early in 2020 and follow your posts avidly, because I think you are bang on the money. I am simply horrified by the corruption of science which has been exposed through the Covid debacle (but hope some good may arise from this exposé).
When the vaccine RCT results were announced in Dec ‘20 we could see that the Kaplan Meier plots looked dramatic. If you didn’t know better, they almost look like dose/response curves or close correlations in a regression analysis. But, as you say, when we drill down into the protocols we can see that they are just “bean counts” with time, created by those who decide what the “”beans” are, and control how they are counted.
I note that the vaccine is still approved in the FDA Letters of Authorisation, for the “PREVENTION of Covid 19 disease”, because that was the only endpoint for which the vaccine was supposedly “proved” efficacious by being statistically significantly different between placebo & vax in the original RCTs. Everything else pivots off the original RCTs including more recent trials which use antibodies as surrogate efficacy endpoints.
We knew from early in 2021 that the vaccines didn’t PREVENT Covid 19 disease but the public was confused (& still is confused) by the official narrative that this was due to rare “breakthrough” cases or “variants”. The public still believe the vaccines reduce disease severity even though the RCTs never proved this.
My son is a GP who was vaccinated in Feb/Mar ‘21. He & 5 friends (all vaccinated at slightly different times & places in Scotland over Jun/Jul ‘21) ALL got Covid after a weekend together in July ‘21. At this point I knew the vaccines didn’t work. But this experience also made me think the trial was probably fraudulent. How likely was it that Pfizer could only find 8 Covid cases/~20k vaccinated in their 2 month trial but I knew 6/6 vaccinated Covid cases in one weekend? Since then, almost all vaccinated people I know have had Covid and some of them, more than once.
It is totally dishonest for CDC/Public health to claim that the “vaccines work” because the RCTs on which they achieved Approval defined getting (even 1 mild symptom of PCR +ve) Covid as LACK of efficacy of the test substance (ie “vaccine” or placebo). So the endpoint that was used to say that the vaccine didn’t work is now being used to say the vaccine does work. Hearing credulous celebrities thanking the vaccine for their mild symptoms is super-annoying!
As you say, we all get caught up in trying to navigate this maze of data and flat out propaganda so it’s easy to get distracted by the ARR/RRR debate (though I would say one thing about the (fake) ARR was that it was so low, it didn’t really fit with the “raging pandemic” narrative). The bottom line for me is that the “vaccine” is approved for “PREVENTION of C19 disease” - something it clearly FAILS to do. So the FDA Authorisation Letter is based on a False Claim.
I note that Peter Marks announced recently that future approvals will have to be based on RCTs https://endpts.com/next-gen-covid-vaccines-no-more-quick-variant-updates-and-rcts-may-be-required-cber-leader-writes/ though if such trials are essentially manipulated then we’re on a hiding to nothing.
Please keep up the amazing work - the truth will come out!
Call me a bitter pessimist, but what now? We can scream fraud all day and the morons plugged into the propaganda 24/7 don't care, the MSM liars don't care, the white sorcerers in their Harma castles don't care, most of our 'elected officials' don't care (a few gems do- thank you to those exiled and demonised few) and most of all, judicial systems hardly seem to care (excepting a few interesting wins in the USA).
Thanks Ark, in any case. I know you mean well. I know it's useful to point out how absurd our situation is, how deep the damnation goes. If only the world had ears to hear.
I read your text only, since I am lowly peasant no need for me to follow up all the links. Far easier to simply reject all things from the medical profession. Thanks for your work.
Yep. ARR, RRR, it was all BS. The only truth was negative efficacy. Period.
I'm no scientist and some of this is above my pay grade but I get the gist of it.
If the results were actually based on a "95% reduction in the chance of testing positive for Covid by a RCR test" what was the number of cycles used in the test? I am told that by increasing the cycles you can get almost any result you want. Isn't this an issue as well?
So we know that all the claims of efficacy were based on PCR positives only. How do we know if all the PCR testing undertaken at Pearl River was from subjects with symptoms suggestive of Covid? If a positive test comes from an asymptomatic individual, then that would not be evidence of a reduction in symptomatic illness. So we need to know if all the PCR testing they conducted was from symptomatic subjects.
Conversely, they report 3410 cases where there were indeed symptoms suggestive of Covid infection, but apparently no PCR confirmation. Why not? Did the dog eat the results?
The claims of efficacy were based on 81 positive PCR's for treatment and 873 positive PCR's for placebo. For a total 951 positives. Yet we have the other 3410 suspected cases with no result!
I'm not sure if the actual primary endpoint was reduction in symptomatic illness or reduction in PCR positives. Because they are not the same thing. Reduction in symptomatic illness might be clinically meaningful. But reduction in PCR positives is not clinically meaningful.
In any event, it's all a complete mess....
Incidentally in the Moderna trial; as far as toxicity goes, there were 16.5% solicited systemic Grade 3 or Grade 4 SAE's in the vax group, as opposed to 3.7% in placebo. Any SAE's graded 3-5 are serious. "Grade 3 events are serious and interfere with a person’s ability to do basic things like eat or get dressed. Grade 3 events may also require medical intervention. Grade 4 events are usually severe enough to require hospitalization." (Grade 5 is death, of course.)
It's hard to imagine that you could ethically administer to many millions of well people (often via the employment of coercion) a medical intervention that, in the clinical trial, resulted in 16.5% serious systemic adverse events. How can anyone describe serious adverse events as 'very rare', when in that Moderna trial they occurred at an incidence of 16.5%!
If they had total control of the PCR samples they could easily have engineered that roughly 14 day window that was instrumental in faking efficacy during the rollout.
Brilliant article. Even though I was aware that any PCR test is bogus and not a true measurement of anything, I still used the ARR argument.... Even taking the ARR at face value was enough to convince me that the shot wouldn’t work.... but you are right, it is a distraction. Thank you.
But what about the sentence immediately following the highlighted bit"Suspected COVID19 cases
that occured within 7 days of any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine group vs 287 in the placebo group."That's pretty damning .Clearly within the 7 days post vaccination , you were more likely to get COVID if you received the vaccine than if you received the placebo.
There were no proper trials because the injections were not proper pharmaceutical products. That is the main point.
"DOD and Pfizer agents had means, motive and opportunity, through OTA contracts, to personally ensure that
:no valid clinical trials would be conducted,
:no valid clinical data would be collected and analyzed, and
:all scientific evidence of product toxicity would be removed, altered, suppressed, falsified, destroyed, discredited or otherwise disappeared, by anyone involved anywhere in the pretend clinical trials process.
In other words, the FDA’s decisions about products manufactured by Pfizer and other DOD contractors were made long before anyone in America had ever heard of Covid-19. The clinical trials were done to support the psychological part of the military operation; the scientific validity and regulatory compliance of the trials was irrelevant".
https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/repost-other-transaction-authority?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=37889&post_id=97482300&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
Wanted to draw your attention to the twitter thread below- the longest thread I've ever seen- 81 entries. In the event it gets scrubbed there is an additional link.
It is from someone who worked within the NHS confirming how the hospitals lied about cause of death to create illusion of "COVID pandemic."
All of this needs to be verified and sourced though the story comports with what happened in the US and certainly elsewhere.
"Before Covid, four types of pneumonia added together were the highest cause of death in the UK. In a newly implemented Medical Examiner System to certify deaths, the Medical Examiner was certifying all types of pneumonia deaths as covid-19 deaths, a former Director of End-of-Life Care has said.
On Saturday, Sai, a former NHS Director of End-of-Life Care, wrote a Twitter thread which, amongst other things, gave a personal account of the changes to the system of reporting deaths implemented in the NHS."
https://twitter.com/TheOriginalSai/status/1614332319111970816
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1614332319111970816.html
Yikes!
Please clarify, the quote from the NEJM is "a 95% reduction in the chance of testing positive for COVID by a PCR test conducted at Pfizer's laboratory in Pearl River". Where does this quote come from? "Participants were followed for safety and for the development of symptomatic COVID-19"? Is it the same paper? Or are both from Pfizer's report? Are they addressing the same thing or not? In other words, was the end point the PCR result and the follow-up for symptomatic COVID or were they suggesting that the endpoint was symptomatic COVID when in fact it was just the PCR result and then only from their own lab?
Has anyone done a comparable analysis of Moderna? I recall a similar analysis (of Pfizer) like this by a group in Canada, but never Moderna or J&J. Just finished Turtles all the Way Down and now believe that a fair number of of products in this market are straight up fraudulent.
Just an FYI: they wanted their results suppressed for 75 years not 55. Either way, they didn’t want their criminal behavior exposed.
☹️Thank you for all your hard work. I feel like there will never be a recognition of all this. However, I think you have saved people from more harm as I won’t be getting anymore shots, neither will my children or extended family.
Another big red flag that put me off taking this detritus was the first "rare" breakthrough case 2 weeks after the first injection was served up here in the UK plc.