That TOGETHER study was funded by FTX…
8 Likes
Show Me The Incentives, I Will Show You The Outcome.
So it seems that setting up the idea of an FDA and you get this type of outcome. The idea is to investigate who works for whom.
Here is an example. People like to talk about sheepdogs protecting the sheep from wolves. You should actually analyze who the sheepdog works for. He does not care about sheep. He works for the shepherd who shears and butchers the sheep to provide food and wool. The people at the CDC and FDA are the sheepdog. They know who butters their bread and they follow orders just like the “other” regulators/sheepdogs in our society. If you believe them, then contact me I have a Greek island to sell you and you will be rich.
5 Likes
Or in Fauci’s case it’s con artist.
3 Likes
The number of people complicit in all of this must be enormous.
3 Likes
I agree and had the same experience. What’s truly maddening is that the folks captured by mass formation, including my sister, refuse to even listen to any mRNA “vaccine” information that doesn’t conform to the establishment’s narrative.
5 Likes
Nice Summary!
Reminds me of the book Sickening. The system with which drugs are approved is ridiculous with its sole purpose to help enrich the 'shareholders".
2 Likes
Well, it did NOT always work this way.
The Corruption layered on over the years. The pot had to keep getting sweeter!
But Mark Twain, Circa 1900:
Everybody in Congress should server 2 terms!
1 in Office, followed by 1 in PRISON!
So, we probably had a rough first 50 years, a pretty good 75 years, and slowly from the 1900s on, the corruption has been layered on…
To make things worse, most rules/laws are actually designed by COMPANIES to limit competition… For example, many of the “rules” about taking off certain pieces of vehicles… Are so that experimenters are breaking the law if they figure out a way to make things more efficient.
There is a law that makes it illegal to turn off the “USA Spy Chip” installed into ALL mobile phones. It is illegal for me to tell you how to do it!
And like that poor doctor with BILLIONS in fines for SELLING Vitamin D3 (which hurt nobody, and helped many), he will be punished. Fauci, et al. GOOD LUCK!
4 Likes
Mike,
This is the first page I’ve read as a subscriber. Much appreciated! And comments also!
2 Likes
My apologies to Dr. Kory. I didn’t remember it correctly.
Yes. Pfizer’s report to VRBPAC in December 2020 had a chart that included 371 exclusions in the week following the 2nd dose, 311 in the vaccine group and 60 in the placebo group. The excess of 251 represents 1.35% of the entire vaccine group, a large hole into which to hide severe vaccine injuries.
Put those numbers into an online coin toss calculator and you will find the odds of 311 or more of 371 being in one group. Is one in 3.5 x 10 to the 41st power. Put another way, it’s about 5 orders of magnitude smaller than the diameter of a proton divided by the diameter of our galaxy. Even assuming a 2/3 chance of the exclusion being in the vaccine group (i.e. twice as many sever adverse events, the odds are still miniscule. I couldn’t find an online calculator with enough significant figures to calculate this accurately, but was able to determine it’s smaller than one in 10 to the twentieth power.
And yet, nobody in any official capacity even mentioned this “slight discrepency”.
4 Likes
How many ways can unblinding be used? In the Pfizer vaccine trial, either a strong suspicion that most adverse events would be in the vaccine group or intentional unblinding of the clinicians allowed them to make sure that those with adverse events had a protocol deviation to allow them to be excluded. It’s as simple as encouraging an injured person, who really wants to know if it was caused by the vaccine, to ask to be unblinded. In TOGETHER, it was simply designing the placebo to look different to subtly encourage those who received the placebo to go buy some IVM at the pharmacy.
1 Like
Any sane society would make NDA’s that prevented disclosure of information that impacted public safety null and void. Simple: if the drug is to be approved, NDAs applying to data from any and all trials of that drug, whether published or not must be nullified.
4 Likes
Pasteur Act: Crass
Saw this advterized on news show this morning:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3932/text
Seems to codify pharma’s pricing based on how big a disease it is that it treats!
BTW Pence on new show this AM mentioned Biden administration stopping research on early treatments.
Thank You Mike And Everyone
A couple of my experiences with this corruption of “science.”
When a new patented drug comes out for hypertension, for example, it must replace the currently used drugs to gain market share. A study is designed by the manufacturer to be a head-to-head comparison between the two. The NewDrug for hypertension must be shown to be better than OldDrug.
The art to designing the study so that it shows the desired results.
Studies designed by pharma use “science,” not to find truth, but to increase market share.
Suppose NewDrug has a side-effect that begins to show up around 6 months after therapy is initiated. Run the study for only 4 months and then loudly state that none of this side-effect was seen.
Supposed the NewDrug is to be dosed once a day but actually wears off in 20 hours and really needs to be taken twice daily to give effective around the clock benefit–but you want to market it as a once a day drug. Just insist that all medicines be given at bedtime (“to ensure consistency” or something) and then check blood pressure at morning appointments that are within the 20 hour effectiveness window.
Suppose NewDrug has a terrible rebound effect if a dose is missed and blood pressure shoots up higher than ever after the missed dose. Use a reminder phone call each day of the study period.
What if NewDrug has a side-effect like nausea. Allow the clinician to use side-effect mitigating strategies: take with food, take 30 minutes after a dose of Zofran, take at bedtime, etc.
But if the OldDrug causes nausea, immediately classify it as a drug failure and drop them out of the study due to side-effects.
Give too high a dose to cause toxicity.
Give too low a dose to cause it to be ineffective.
If a drug’s dose needs to be titrated to find the optimum dose, you can allow dose titration (to make it succeed) or insist on only using the starting dose “to ensure consistency” or something–to make it fail.
Foiling efforts to blind: Put the vial number on top and the bar code on the bottom of the vial for the study drug and reverse on the placebo. This lets the clinician researcher know which is the active drug despite being officially blinded. This makes the outcomes better! (Famous case where this was used.)
Pharma maintains final editorial control over the paper and its publishing. A negative study is discarded and is never seen by the public nor spoken of again due to NDA agreements signed by investigators.
Jerry Hoffman and tPA
There was a very famous situation with regards to tPA (tissue Plasminogen Activator, a clot dissolving drug) was first proposed for the use in strokes in ~1999. The American Heart Association (funded by the tPA maker) convened a panel of nine (9) experts to make guidelines for tPA use in stroke. However, Gerome “Jerry” Hoffman, a very well known academic emergency physician at UCLA disagreed with the conclusions and would not sign the final document.
Last paragraph of this paper: "When the American Heart Association examined the use of thrombolytic therapy for acute stroke in October 1999, they recruited an emergency physician—Jerome R Hoffman— but then dropped his name from their list of panel members when he refused to sign the resulting recommendations (with which he disagreed). Initially, Hoffman was asked to submit a rebuttal essay, but his submission was never published. Later, he asked if the American Heart Association would publish a shorter one-to-two paragraph dissent alongside the recommendations. When this offer was refused, he requested that the following statement be appended to the document: “Jerome R Hoffman also participated in the panel but disagrees with the recommendations contained in this paper.” This request was also denied."The AHA then published a unanimous recommendation of all 8 experts! His name is not included anywhere in the guidelines paper--it is as if he was never there. A year later, he published his viewpoint in an obscure journal. Against: And just what is the emperor of stroke wearing?Jerome R Hoffman1 The long shadow of these tPA guidelines affects us to this day. My last ED job in Richmond, Virginia was at a hospital that marketed itself to the community as a "Stroke Center of Excellence." A big banner over the ED announced this to the public. To keep this "Stroke Center of Excellence" designation, they had to demonstrate that they had give tPA to 90% of eligible stroke patients within 1 hour of arrival. No dissent from ED doctors in borderline cases was permitted and the neurology consultants took that position that it was better to give the drug than to be found later to have "missed the treatment" and risk losing the Center of Excellence designation. Thrombolytics in stroke remain the standard of care
2 Likes
I should add that the Cochrane Institute (whose impartiality and expertise I trust) has concluded over the next 2 decades that thrombolytics have been shown to be helpful and are recommended in the first 3 hours.
This discussion is more about the way that dissent is handled than thrombolytics!
2 Likes
That is absolutely shocking. This is the point that makes me say the word “evil.”
3 Likes
And if hiding / obfuscating / deliberately censoring away the negative efficacy qualifies as Evil ( as @sand_kitty has said ) then what can one say about governments which MANDATE their use in order to exercise one’s basic rights to work or to travel or to buy food or other goods ?
For instance, the recent proclamation at last week’s G-20 summit.
How does one begin to properly describe that?
We may need to find a superlative word, or else start inserting one or more adjectives in front of the word “evil.”
– Chuck
4 Likes
It can’t.
1 Like
When I studied US History in high school, I remember thinking “What I want to know is, when did it all turn to crap?” If I recall correctly, I had decided that by the Jackson administration, it was definitely crap.
2 Likes
Run In
Then there is the issue of run in periods. Once they have collected the participants and before the official start of the trial, they give all participants the drug for a few weeks. The trial then starts only with the participants that didn’t bow out during the run in. Effectively removing the ones that suffered side effects during the run in.
I’m afraid its manipulation and corruption all the way down…