“Those who take Covid ‘vaccines’ … have a HIGHER risk of severe disease or even death”

What is one to make of this: mRNA Tech Inventor Dr. Robert Malone: Easier for Delta to Kill ‘Vaccinated’ than Jab-Free People. If this is true, why the urgency for vaxxination?

Those who take the Covid-19 “vaccines” are MORE susceptible to the Delta Variant and have a HIGHER risk of severe disease or even death. This information comes from Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the very mRNA technology used to transmit both the Pfizer and Moderna injections.

mRNA Tech Inventor Dr. Robert Malone_ Easier for Delta to Kill 'Vaccinated' than Jab-Free People

What are we being rushed into and why the rush anyway if the vaxxines are so potentially dangerous?

Meanwhile, going in a very different direction but still dealing with the virus, we have this: New Zealand’s Tyrannical PM Tells Kiwis To ‘Blame Australia’ For COVID Lockdowns. “Tyrannical” is their word, not mine. But here’s what she said:

New Zealand’s PM Jacinda Ardern decided to place the entire country on lockdown after finding a single case believed to be (but not proven to be) caused by the delta variant. And she wants desperate Kiwis eager to avoid the two-month horrorshow of lockdowns currently plaguing Australia (which has failed to stop the spread of the virus) to know that the real culprit responsible for their current situation is: Australia.

Specifically, New South Wales, which according to Ardern didn’t lock down “hard and fast” enough to stop the virus from leapfrogging to neighboring New Zealand, which hasn’t seen a case of COVID in months.

These politicians are always looking for an excuse for their own failures. Not that I think of one case in months actually is a failure, but she set the standard to live and die by so here we are.

 

67 thoughts on ““Those who take Covid ‘vaccines’ … have a HIGHER risk of severe disease or even death””

  1. I’m not getting vaxed. I’m not being experimented on and neither are my kids.

    I’m not anti-vax, I’ve had pretty much every vax under the sun.

    THIS vax however is pure BS, it is experimental and in mass roll out. This makes zero sense unless you have particular and very dark objectives.


    Report comment

    2
  2. I’ve had the AZ vaxx number one, and due for the second in four week’s time. I don’t buy a lot of the anti-vaxx stuff that is on the net. The proponents all seem to have other barrows to push – Malone being one of them, who feels he has been poorly recognised for some quite simple earlier work he did which required much development by a range of others and who, after not completing his PhD, had an unimpressive set of pharma jobs that went nowhere. He is notably bitter and twisted over this and seems to want to discredit the vaxx, although sometimes more than others, depending on to whom he is speaking.

    Data just out from Israel and some US tracking studies of 3000-4000 people look at declining immunity over time with the vaxxes, and this is the main story, not any impued ADE put into it the reportage by misinterpeting anti-vaxxers writing their own drama-queen headlines. Of course susceptibility to Delta will be present in those who have a lower immunity from a vaxx given a year ago, especially as the immunity produced by the vaxx is not as specific to Delta variant as it is to Alpha variant. Just what epidemiological studies is Malone drawing on for his conclusions? Nothing much, I suspect. Another panic merchant. So many of them twist the data to suit their own ends, producing a lot of misinterpretation of it. Best to look at the original studies.


    Report comment

    1
  3. Malone definitely seems to have a personal agenda. Where is he currently doing research to come up with these ‘facts’ ?

    Can we see some links to his recent research articles?

    His claims regarding being the sole inventor of mRna are disputed


    Report comment

  4. Malone might very well be ‘bitter’, he may very well be only part of a team that ‘invented’ mRNA tech, but IS HE WRONG? Is he completely off the mark?

    Consider for a minute that the only people you might actually get the truth from are those outside the ‘in’ group. Those not dependant on certain interests for today’s wage, or tomorrow’s employment. Like all industries, I’m sure Malone’s is surprising small and tight and your next job hangs on the tongues of your colleagues. The incentive to speak truth to power would be incredibly small, and the consequences would be enormous. Would should be grateful to people like Malone, for whilst they may or may not be 100% correct, they open our eyes to alternate issues and open them up for discussion. Evil breeds in closed shops.

    By now, we should all be well accustomed to the smear tactic and the distraction that comes with. If Malone has an agenda, sure as shit his detractors do to. His wife says something about him?

    From the New York Times: Solzhenitsyn’s Ex?Wife Says ‘Gulag’ Is ‘Folklore’


    Report comment

    7
  5. And just to add to my comment above; it’s a tried and tested strategy.

    Think, what happens to scientists who come out against the Climate Change narrative? Familiar?


    Report comment

    2
  6. Malone claims to have invented mrna vaccines.

    He didn’t. In the scientific world that should matter.

    He dropped out of his phd at age 27 and is now 61. That’s a long, long time.

    Where is his published research to support his claim that vaccinated people are more likely to get very sick and die?

    Or does he simply get to rely on his voice of authority?

    Because every jurisdiction that has a highly vaccinated population seems to say the opposite and has actually published data for us normies.

    I’m very sceptical of anyone that claims ‘secret knowledge ‘ yet that seems to be the cases with this bloke and a few others.

    And as if anything that is of such enormous interest to people wouldn’t attract a fair share of spivs and charlatans.

    Evidence? Not a single of Graeme’s was original.

    Btw I now get people claiming I was provax before a vaxx was even invented yet I recall I was just winding up someone who claimed we would all be compulsorily vaxxed in January 2021 which is why I responded that I was so enthusiastic I would get two.


    Report comment

  7. And it might well be that climate science is a fraud and some of the anti vaxx lobby are frauds.

    Like the guy who claimed childhood vaccines cause autism.


    Report comment

  8. Rosie,
    Fine, be sceptical, but you have joined in the anti-Malone crowd by your continued posting of articles which are design to discredit him.

    How many times have you reposted the Atlantic article across the various Cat platforms? I bet you’ve got it bookmarked, ready to go at a moment’s notice.


    Report comment

  9. You know I have posted the Atlantic once here this morning, the other time it was posted by ftb after I posted something else on Dover’s open forum.

    And I don’t have it bookmarked.
    What is your problem? I made a comment about anti vaxxers following through and declining hospital treatment and you’ve been after me ever since after twisting that into they should be denied hospital treatment, which I never said.

    Apparently now if someone believes false claims are being made they should remain silent.

    Now where are the facts to back up Malone’s claims?


    Report comment

  10. Ask yourself this:

    Is Antibody-dependent Enhancement (ADE) a real thing?
    I would say yes.

    Would us ‘normies’ have heard about it without people like Malone?
    I would venture to say no.

    Do you think you’re more, or less, informed as a result of Malone’s (and his ilk’s) efforts?


    Report comment

    2
  11. ADE is just something else Malone has thrown in to muddy the waters.

    Where is the research to support the claims about ade and the mRna covid vaccine?


    Report comment

  12. Apparently now if someone believes false claims are being made they should remain silent.

    No, but you tend to fill up pages with links designed to discredit him. It’s not just here that you’ve done it.

    I just dislike people who jump on the bandwagon, and then add extra horses. It reminds me of a Twitter mob.

    I’m better informed because of Malone, and so are you. If you want to discourage insiders from coming out with the truth (regardless of the topic or industry), your behaviour is contributing to the discouragement.

    From my previous work, I could come out with some stuff that would blow your mind, but I’d be smeared, discredited and unable to feed my family. People like you would be the prime movers for that.

    You don’t know anything more about Malone’s speciality than me, but I read his stuff (and much more), make an assessment, I might even make a comment, but I don’t go full retard against the author….because I’m not an expert and I remain open minded.


    Report comment

  13. I provide links because I want people to make up their own minds.

    And the fact is if its reuters or the Atlantic or any number of sources that some people dismiss out of hand I try to find other more neutral ones as well .

    And they are only links. No one is forced to follow them, I don’t fill the pages of blogs with downloaded material.

    And yes if I think someone is a charlatan I’m not going to be open minded.

    Sorry about that.


    Report comment

  14. You couldn’t possibly know if I would be a prime mover in smearing discrediting or preventing you from feeding your family for whatever life experience you have had. What a very very ordinary thing to say.

    Just because I have a robust distrust of a member of the scientific community who misrepresented their involvement in the development of mRna vaccines and makes speculative claims about things like ade without apparently providing any research findings to support those claims.

    And you made a false claim about me in relation to the Atlantic article, without blinking an eye.


    Report comment

  15. And you made a false claim about me in relation to the Atlantic article, without blinking an eye.

    So you are saying that this thread is the first time you’ve posted it?


    Report comment

  16. Rosie (The Dept of Humour’s head of Joke Checking ) is amazing.
    Stunning in her breadth
    though, a little less impressive in depth

    To be honest Rosie, if there’s anything I notice most about your voice in these forums, it’s how its how you manage to suck all the oxygen up and starve everything else

    bleak, humourless, and nagging until everybody suffocates.
    yay


    Report comment

    4
  17. Bleak humourless nagging

    Look mater the first time I saw the Atlantic article was after ftb posted it i think yesterday morning? . I may have shared it elsewhere else later yesterday but I honestly don’t remember doing so. And I don’t care if I did because so what? I don’t have it ‘bookmarked’ because I don’t have anything bookmarked, I don’t even know how to ‘bookmark ‘.

    It came up when I googled Malone this morning and I thought it was relevant and people may not have seen it in the open forum.

    I do object to you inferring I’m a liar on top of everything else.

    And when I see those ‘character assessments’ I know for certain you’re on to something.
    I mean what an accurate assessment of who I am.

    Forgive me for getting ticked when putting an alternative perspective, and trying to do merely by linking alternative information, I get personally attacked and my character maligned, again.

    You don’t know me, I don’t know you but I have never made disparaging claims about you in the way you feel so comfortable about making them about me.

    At least you didn’t accuse me of being a paid social media influencer.


    Report comment

  18. Follow the money.

    FDA has big pharma funding. Fauci and his mates get royalties from vaxxes and pharma meds. You can do a deep dive. For all the greenie tears about big oil, the pharma industry pays out way more to politicians and others.

    https://www.investopedia.com/investing/which-industry-spends-most-lobbying-antm-so/

    That doesn’t mean everything they say is wrong, but it does mean we should be wearing our alert buttons whenever they make mega-claims or gain mega-power.

    One little man with a chip on his shoulder ain’t got nothin’ on these folk.


    Report comment

  19. This thread illustrates the problem:
    How does a person assess the merits of an argument in a discipline that requires years of study when that person is a layperson in that discipline?
    A high level of numeracy and basic statistics, logic and science training goes so far.
    But at some point, assessing the truth of claims about the minute interactions of the immune system during a pandemic? It isn’t even one discipline. It’s multiple disciplines each requiring years of study under the tutelage of a small handful of experts.
    With this thing, it’s likely that many of the decisions being made would, in normal times be highly contentious.
    These are not normal times.
    These are times that are highly polarised, we’re in the middle of a cultural marxist coup, and the largest transfer of wealth and power in human history.
    It’s a pig in a poke.


    Report comment

    5
  20. Look mater the first time I saw the Atlantic article was after ftb posted it i think yesterday morning? . I may have shared it elsewhere else later yesterday but I honestly don’t remember doing so

    Ok, fine.
    If the collection of Cats wasn’t such a discombobulated mess at the moment, and the old Cat wasn’t removed, I’d check that out. My memory rarely fails me (as Bob found to his eternal discomfort), and frankly I can’t be bothered at the moment.

    However, suffice to say that this isn’t your first anti-Malone rodeo, and it isn’t the first where you’ve targetted the man rather than the issues he raises.

    rosiesays:
    August 18, 2021 at 7:19 am
    Thanks Megan

    I know exactly who Dr Malone is, and there is evidence enough that he has exaggerated his participation in the development of mRna, being one of many, not The One

    If we are looking at personal agendas, you seem to not want to rock the vaccine boat for something other than health concerns.

    Rosie says:
    July 25, 2021 at 8:52 am
    Well so am I Mater.
    I want out, and if a vaxx percentage is the only way for politicians to save face, that will have to do.

    Please also don’t complain about getting a response. You posted not long ago that you post certain things to trigger people, don’t complain when people rise to the occasion. “Works a treat” according to you.

    This is the last comment I’m going to make on this issue, I’ve got better things to do than get involved in a screeching contest.


    Report comment

    5
  21. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33053430/

    Introduction of spike proteins to invitro models of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) showed significant changes to barrier properties. Key to our findings is the demonstration that S1 promotes loss of barrier integrity in an advanced 3D microfluidic model of the human BBB, a platform that more closely resembles the physiological conditions at this CNS interface. Evidence provided suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins trigger a pro-inflammatory response on brain endothelial cells that may contribute to an altered state of BBB function. Together, these results are the first to show the direct impact that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could have on brain endothelial cells; thereby offering a plausible explanation for the neurological consequences seen in COVID-19 patients.


    Report comment

    1
  22. I think the most likely scenario is similar but not identical to the “climate change” bullshit.
    1. The academy is now mostly marxist.
    2. There are huge interests in the outcome.
    3. There are existing pathways of influence in the form of employment contracts, professional associations, editors etc.
    4. There is the very human relationship with the sunk cost fallacy.
    5. There is the old media who are totally reliant on government for licenses, advertising and access.
    6. There are the captured institutions like WHO, interacting with the CCP.
    7. There is again, an area of expertise which is almost hand picked for the level of uncertainty, but which everyone has a passing knowledge of because of Year 9 Science, popular culture and doctor’s visits.
    8. And the big one, the big psychological manipulator: FEAR.
    ..
    One is left with these things to try to make sense of things:
    1. Basic numeracy, literacy, statistics and logic.
    2. Understanding the incentives of those involved.
    3. Caution.
    4. Detection of deception. (e.g: the climategate e-mails).
    5. Use of experts in the area who have previously proved sound over a contentious issue.
    ..
    Noting that marxists have a past record of picking precisely these types of difficult to prove or disprove issues to divide, herd and manipulate doesn’t mean that this is entirely that, but should call for caution none the less.


    Report comment

    5
  23. Arky your post is spot on.

    There was that brilliant quote on the old Cat something along the lines of “Yes I will listen to experts – after you weed out the shysters, hustlers, self-promoters”.

    I am also reminded of the (Sir Humphrey) Appleby Rule, ie “don’t hold an enquiry unless you are sure of the results” is being applied to politicised science(be it covid related incl masks or CAGW) ie many studies are designed to produce a known outcome. These are then widely publicised or censored, then when they are rightly shredded, which is then either widely publicised or censored is anybody surprised that we have the gamut of stridently pro/ what harm can it do?/ grit teeth to make this go away / confused/hesitant / refusers(this vax)/ anti-vaxxers/outright conspiracy loons? All have some “science” to back them up.


    Report comment

    1
  24. Three strategies for assessing the merits of a specialist argument:
    1. Previous deception.
    2. Communicating with either childish over simplifications or with incomprehensible jargon gibberish.
    3. Logically self- contradicting information. “Masks don’t work, we need the masks for frontline workers”.


    Report comment

  25. 3. Logically self- contradicting information. “Masks don’t work, we need the masks for frontline workers”.

    Sadly this one is not picked up often, as it is sometimes weeks between proposition A and B, which leads to gaslighting disguised under the “when the facts change I change my mind” mantra


    Report comment

  26. A high level of numeracy and basic statistics, logic and science training goes so far.
    But at some point, assessing the truth of claims about the minute interactions of the immune system during a pandemic? It isn’t even one discipline. It’s multiple disciplines each requiring years of study under the tutelage of a small handful of experts.
    With this thing, it’s likely that many of the decisions being made would, in normal times be highly contentious.
    These are not normal times.

    Well outlined, Arky. I’m with Mater (and I think Rosie is too) in wanting to hear all sides of any debate, but I’m with my own understandings when I look at the materials put up to support each side, i.e. the actual data and then the studies (good or bad) that emerge from the data. I am extremely suspicious of too much ‘modelling’ due to poor input data and flawed assumptions, in all fields of endeavour, epidemiology, economics or matters climatic. Thus I apply the same strictures to Covid as I do with climate change. With that I find that the hypothesis, the input data and the results do not test well against empirical reality.

    The empirical reality of the millions of doses of vaxx show relatively few instances of problems given the huge numbers of what epidemiologists call the ‘exposed’ in any examination of the vaxxes – now, pace, I know that some people die and some deleterious reactions occur to the various vaxxes, and in times that are not those which Arky suggests today we may have more reason to pause and take stock. I hope to see some better and improved vaxxes down the line, as well as treatments. But so far, the good of the vaxxes seems to outweigh the bad, by a very large margin. And that’s my margin call.


    Report comment

  27. which leads to gaslighting disguised under the “when the facts change I change my mind” mantra

    ..
    Which points to the underlying problem: we’ve moved from a model where, at least on the surface, politicians gave lip service to the idea that politicians are representative of the people, to the now apparently OK to acknowledge reality that politicians are the conduit for a technocratic elite to openly manipulate the majority of the people, while people like us look on with horror. That is, it is simply the exercise of power.


    Report comment

  28. for clarity …’with climate change, I apply the same strictures etc…. ‘ For Covid I have a similar critique of some of the modelling construction and its usage of data. But the empirical data regarding the utility and general safety of the Covid Vaxx stacks up, whereas with ‘climate change’ the empirical data does not support the modelling, unless it is politically contaminated (Met Office, J-curve anyone?), often quite deliberately, nor does empirical evidence (sunspots for instance, Pacific Oscillation etc, stratosphere indicator) seem to support the CO2 hypothesis.

    Anyone with a critical intelligence who wants to throw their hat in the ring is, as Arky suggests, pretty much on the same ground as most others. We all form our own opinions. Way to go, imho.


    Report comment

  29. How does a person assess the merits of an argument in a discipline that requires years of study when that person is a layperson in that discipline?

    That’s easy.

    You look at the institution and industry’s past behaviour and track record.

    Such as experimenting on children in unregulated countries:

    KANO, Nigeria — By the time word of the little girl’s death reached the United States, her name had been replaced by numerals: No. 6587-0069.

    She was 10 years old and a scant 41 pounds. She lived in Nigeria, and in April 1996 she ached from meningitis.

    An epidemic raged and scores lay dying in this frenetic city of amber dust. Somehow the girl found a refuge: a medical camp where foreign doctors had arrived to dispense expensive medicines for free.

    Behind a gate besieged by suffering crowds stood two very different clinics. A humanitarian charity, Doctors Without Borders, had erected a treatment center solely in an effort to save lives. Researchers for Pfizer Inc., a huge American drug company, had set up a second center. They were using Nigeria’s meningitis epidemic to conduct experiments on children with what Pfizer believed was a promising new antibiotic–a drug not yet approved in the United States.

    .

    Such as corrupting public health:

    In August 2012 the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it had reached a $45 million settlement with Pfizer to resolve charges that its subsidiaries, especially Wyeth, had bribed overseas doctors and other healthcare professionals to increase foreign sales.

    In 2010 Pfizer disclosed that during a six-month period the previous year it had paid $20 million to some 4,500 doctors and other medical professionals for consulting and speaking on the company’s behalf. This was the first time the company had made public its spending of this kind.

    Such as knowingly killing 38,000 people and covering it up:

    According to a review published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, Merck held back initial data showing Vioxx® caused an increase in heart attack and stroke risk.5 It took three more years of patients needlessly dying before Vioxx® was pulled off the market.

    The FDA never mandated Vioxx® be banned. As lawsuits started piling up, Merck made a business decision to withdraw Vioxx® worldwide, while denying there was a safety issue.6

    etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
    moderated

  30. I do object to you inferring

    your problem Rosie, is that your words and actions do not align

    almost without fail when you inject your voice you “infer”
    sometimes I watch you directly put words in other people’s mouths.
    You exaggerate
    you misrepresent
    you malign and impune
    and you lie

    there is no point trying to have a normal dialog with people like you


    Report comment

    3
  31. Arky, I agree with you. One thing I’d add is that most people really don’t realise just how much science has changed since big funding by governments and interest groups have entered the equation. Nor do they seem to realise that scientists are just as likely to see what they want to see as everyone else. Whether that’s because of their own political leanings, beliefs, ego or funding sources, the more public and political the particular area, the more likely these things play into it. There is no neutral ground. We’ve tried to turn ‘the science’ into a god and he has wobbly legs.

    Everyone cherry-picks. Some here are quick to jump on anything from Children’s Health Defense or The Highwire because they are anti-vax groups. But most of their stuff is backed by legit scientific research. They cherry-pick the stuff that supports their theories. So does the ABC, BBC and any other group you care to name. You can’t rubbish their findings and then hug the BBC-reported stuff as if one is ‘better’, more ‘scientific’ or less cherry-picked. (eg. BBC Health Department is funded by Gates.)

    Science is about data and story. We don’t argue about the data, we just argue about the story.

    What we know about infection, transmission, viruses, retroviruses, vaccines, immune systems – is actually not much. We speculate and build a narrative around what we see, but we don’t know a lot. Over time, God willing, we learn.


    Report comment

    2
  32. The empirical reality of the millions of doses of vaxx show relatively few instances of problems …

    your words and actions do not match either.
    You have absolutely not made any such empirical study
    and you most certain are not privvy to the results of any study by anybody else
    You can always show us
    guessing you wont though.

    I know that some people die and some deleterious reactions occur to the various vaxxes…

    … getting ready to throw away any empirical pretenses in 3…2…1 …

    I hope to see some better and improved vaxxes down the line, as well as treatments.

    … 0

    But so far, the good of the vaxxes seems to outweigh the bad, by a very large margin.

    the word “seem” doesn’t sound very empirical

    And that’s my margin call.

    So, if you’re like some sort experty opinionista how come the best you can offer is a guess?


    Report comment

    1
  33. From Adam’s Cat. Definitely a worthwhile video…

    Also Rosie, you see what HD has done here? Thoughtful insight to give a clue as the content/context. No doubt some of your links are worthwhile but a wall of them with little preamble is very scrollable.

    HD says:
    August 19, 2021 at 8:34 pm
    I thought this was interesting:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0nAqgQafhQ

    This fellow alleges Israel is three months ahead of everywhere else in terms of vaccination. Currently 65% of the population double vaccinated for a period of greater than three months. Surprisingly this sub-population makes up %65 of the hospital patients currently hospitalised with corona.

    Whereas the recovered sub-population is roughly 9.5% of the population, however at present only make up 2% of those currently hospitalised. There’s another 1% recovered, vaccinated and hospitalised, however the sequence of events for this population is not clear.

    Essentially natural immunity appears ( recovered people now ill again) appears to be far superior protection versus vaccinated persons, three months later. Hence, in reference to my post earlier today, being previously infected by Alpha strain results in antibodies that are perhaps four fold or more as protective as the $2 jobs conferred by vaccines when it comes to Delta.

    Three months post vaccine, just as likely to get sick and hospitalised with Delta as an unvaccinated person. What is being put spruiked by the media about vaccinated means less chance of death and lesser severity of infection- well apparently conditionally for three months. Thereafter just as likely to be sic enough to be hospitalised. As pointed out in the video, do people really want a lifetime of regular medical interventions with booster shots?

    Factoring in the 30% of people that can respond effectively to Corona with pre-existing antibodies to a formerly encountered corona relative, the whatever percent that are “molecularly inaccessible” to the virus due to genetic diversity and the fact that for most persons the illness is rather mild, seems to me corona was never and will never be the monster people have been led to believe it is.

    Going off these Israeli numbers, if you do get sick a second time and end up in hospital, having been never vaccinated in the first place when infected- you are seriously unlucky.



    Report comment

    1
  34. Dr Malone has been shadow banned and had work he has done and papers he has published stripped from the interwebs. It appears there is concentrated effort to discredit him. Make of that what you will.

    Follow the money. For all our argument about the benefit or not of vaccination, why have we been prevented from accessing several very cheap, effective remedies for treatment? Could it be that if there was a credible treatment allowed, there would be no need for a vaccine?


    Report comment

    1
  35. Dr Malone has been shadow banned and had work he has done and papers he has published stripped from the interwebs. It appears there is concentrated effort to discredit him. Make of that what you will.

    Indeed. On the old Cat, I posted a link to the before and after of his Wiki page which showed how quickly they tried to memory hole history. I will try to dig it up.


    Report comment

  36. Pharmaceutical companies have powerful well versed strategies for dealing with people who critisise their products.

    E.g:

    Merck made a “hit list” of doctors who criticized Vioxx, according to testimony in a Vioxx class action case in Australia. The list, emailed between Merck employees, contained doctors’ names with the labels “neutralise,” “neutralised” or “discredit” next to them.

    The allegations come on the heels of revelations that Merck created a fake medical journal — the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine — in which to publish studies about Vioxx; and paid ghostwriters to draft articles about the drug.

    The court was told that James Fries, professor of medicine at Stanford University, wrote to the then Merck head Ray Gilmartin in October 2000 to complain about the treatment of some of his researchers who had criticised the drug.

    “Even worse were allegations of Merck damage control by intimidation,” he wrote, … “This has happened to at least eight (clinical) investigators

    The likes of notafan, and lizzie at this point know this is exactly how this industry rolls – one giant corrupt smearing, discrediting, face smashing mega-revenue generating apparatus. So engaging in the exact same strategic behaviour against this Malone fellow in the sudden campaign to discredit him, as always happens in this industry when people come out against billion dollar new revenue streams is pretty seedy.


    Report comment

    1
  37. Matrix @ 11:48. Thanks for that comment. I knew before I even clicked on the comments button that the smear slapper would have already mounted her high horse and given everyone the multitudinous benefit of her complete ignorance.

    None so blind etc.


    Report comment

  38. Pharma companies own many editors and admin staff in the biggest journals, they control much of who does and doesn’t get published.

    If they can’t buy them, they simply do things like pay the biggest scientific journal publisher in the world, to create fake journals for them.

    Merck paid an undisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of [Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine], a publication that had the look of a peer-reviewed medical journal, but contained only reprinted or summarized articles—most of which presented data favorable to Merck products—that appeared to act solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship.[

    Some known fake ‘journals’ willfully published by Elsevier for pharma companies:

    Australasian Journal of General Practice
    Australasian Journal of Neurology
    Australasian Journal of Cardiology
    Australasian Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
    Australasian Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine
    Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine

    These companies and their ‘marketing’ departments, have infinite money and do whatever is necessary to influence the world to accept their hundred million dollar product streams. From standard corruption of everyone remotely involved in medicine and public health, to creating vast fake realities with ‘marketing’ campaigns that are outright fraud, to lying and hiding the data they have about their products from regulatory bodies (which ironically are riddled with their guys), to campaigns to destroy and discredit anybody who published negative results about their products, to amazing schemes such as buying entire health practices simply to gain access to one single highly regarded GP who is employed by that practice.

    There is absolutely a culture of mafia-like corruption in pharmaceuticals, the smaller and more naive the country the less capable it is of fending off the corruption when a Pfizer or Merck determine they want a product to enter that market. The caricature of the Gordon Gecko style money-at-all-costs culture in trading is real in this industry and far, far worse.


    Report comment

  39. And lest AstraZeneca get a free ride:

    As Brilinta’s sales took off later, however, AstraZeneca and firms selling or developing similar cardiovascular therapies showered the four with money for travel and advice. For example, those companies paid or reimbursed cardiologist Jonathan Halperin of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City more than $200,000 for accommodations, honoraria, and consulting from 2013 to 2016. During that period, for example, AstraZeneca says it paid Halperin more than $11,000 in expenses and fees for work on an advisory board, service on a data monitoring committee for a clinical trial of Brilinta led by the University of California, San Francisco, and for his service chairing the data monitoring committee for an AstraZeneca-sponsored multimillion-dollar clinical trial of Brilinta led by Duke University.

    That is, Astrazeneca among others paid over $200,000USD in ‘benefits’ to four FDA ‘advisors’ who voted to approve one of its drugs.

    People in the medical industry are like pigs at a trough when it comes to this stuff, it’s a running joke inside that nobody can get between a GP and a freebie. Any other industry and it would be named what it is: criminal corruption. This industry gets away with it because people are afraid of offending the people that “save lives”. But the longer it goes on, the more grotesque it becomes and the more it distorts the moral universe of the entire medical industry. Until we get to a point where the industry, blinded by money and greed will demand we inject every child, by force if necessary, with expensive, experimental concoctions for no benefit to the child what-so-ever.

    Which is where we are today.


    Report comment

  40. Here’s a review article looking at the possible adverse effects of the mRNA vaccines

    https://dpbh.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/dpbhnvgov/content/Boards/BOH/Meetings/2021/SENEFF~1.PDF

    It’s the most comprehensive one I’ve found. I can’t say how credible the authors or the journal are, but there are 10 pages of references to other papers, and so quite checkable for someone with access and the necessary knowledge.

    I’m about a third through it and struggling a bit, although I can understand the general meaning.

    But the intro is simple enough to understand, and horrifying enough to wonder what has possessed our politicians.

    Development of mRNA vaccines against infectious disease is unprecedented in many ways. In a 2018 publication sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, vaccines were divided into three categories: Simple, Complex, and Unprecedented (Young et al., 2018). Simple and Complex vaccines represented standard and modified applications of existing vaccine technologies. Unprecedented represents a category of vaccine against a disease for which there has never before been a suitable vaccine. Vaccines against HIV and malaria are examples. As their analysis indicates, depicted in Figure 1, unprecedented vaccines are expected to take 12.5 years to develop. Even more ominously, they have a 5% estimated chance of making it through Phase II trials (assessing efficacy) and, of that 5%, a 40% chance of making it through Phase III trials (assessing population benefit). In other words, an unprecedented vaccine was predicted to have a 2% probability of success at the stage of a Phase III clinical trial. As the authors bluntly put it, there is a “low probability of success, especially for unprecedented vaccines.” (Young et al., 2018)

    And this is the reference so you can check.

    Young, R., Bekele, T., Gunn, A., Chapman, N., Chowdhary, V., Corrigan, K., … Yamey, G. (2018). Developing New Health Technologies for Neglected Diseases: A Pipeline Portfolio Review and Cost Model. Gates Open Res 2:23. https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.12817.2.

    Here’s a quote from Young et al.

    Unprecedented vaccines. In addition to sub-classifying vaccine candidates into “simple” and “complex,” we added “unprecedented vaccines” as a third vaccine candidate category. We assigned candidate vaccines for HIV, TB, and malaria to this third sub-category, which we considered as unprecedented as current platforms have not led to suitable vaccines. We assumed that vaccines targeting each of these diseases would require the development of innovative platforms and a better understanding of the basic biology and of immune protection. The assumptions for unprecedented vaccines were provided by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which used the P2I v.1 assumptions for complex vaccines as a starting point. As shown in Table 2, the assumptions for unprecedented vaccines are the same as for complex vaccines, with two exceptions. In the P2I v.2 model, unprecedented vaccines have a lower probability of success in phases II and III than complex vaccines (in phase II, 5% for unprecedented vaccines versus 22% for complex vaccines; in phase III, 40% probability of success for unprecedented vaccines versus 64% for complex vaccines). These probability rates for unprecedented vaccines (5% in phase II, 40% in phase III), provided by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, were based on around 10–25 data points per estimated value (these data were from both the Foundation portfolio and publicly available sources). These lower probabilities of success compared with complex vaccines reflect the Foundation’s real world experience of trying to develop highly effective vaccines against HIV, TB, and malaria.

    The discussion on ADE, adjuvants and autoimmunity is making my hair curl.

    Anyone forcing these vaccines onto people without having a solid refutation of the questions raised in this article are acting with criminal disregard, if not actually committing crimes against humanity.


    Report comment

  41. Good post. I be taught something tougher on different blogs everyday. It will at all times be stimulating to learn content from different writers and observe a little bit something from their store. I? prefer to make use of some with the content on my weblog whether you don? mind. Natually I?l offer you a link on your net blog. Thanks for sharing.
    moderated

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *