"The Speed of Science" definition:

Submitted by snoopydawg on Thu, 03/30/2023 - 11:59am

Have the whole world take part in the 3rd stage of the trials.

"The largest global vaccination trial ever

There are 3 ways in which our leaders denied the public the opportunity to give valid consent, which is a legal and ethical requirement for the administration of a vaccine:

1 - The majority of the public was not made aware that they were taking part in an experiment

2 - The government applied undue pressure and engaged in tactics of manipulation and coercion

3 -The public was not sufficiently informed of the risks

Such glaring violations of the principle of valid consent should have prompted the medical fraternity to sound the alarm, with full-throated support by the news media. It’s notable that it is not only our governments that did us wrong on this. Our doctors, nurses, vaccinators and media were accomplices to this unconscionable breach of established medical ethics.

1. The majority of the public was not made aware that they were taking part in an experiment

Australia’s Minister for Health at the time, Greg Hunt, said of the vaccine rollout in February 2021,

“The world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever, and we will have enormous amounts of data…”

The Covid vaccines were rolled out concurrently with the Phase 3 trials. This is highly irregular, as new vaccines are generally required to complete trial phases 1-3 before receiving full approval by regulatory bodies, after which they are rolled out to the wider population. This process typically takes 7-10 years.

The conventional pathway of vaccine development is illustrated in this flow chart from Australia’s National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS):
…..
Phase 3 trials are the stage at which safety and immunogenicity are determined. As these trials are not complete, we do not have complete data on safety and immunogenicity, even at almost two years into the real world roll out.

They are still lying to us about this.

A few months old, but still relevant.

It is this fact that presumably led world leaders, including Hunt , Barack Obama, and Pfizer’s Vice President Dr Philip Dormitzer to refer to the global vaccination rollout as a ‘trial’, or as ‘experimental.’

Tags: 
Global vaccine trials
Share
up
10 users have voted.

Comments

Submitted by wouldsman on Thu, 03/30/2023 - 1:51pm

speaking of the speed of science. I hope you are keeping an eye on the pushback against the Cochrane study on masking. It looks like a total garbage study. I know it is a study and conclusion that a lot of people WANT to believe. The study looks as bad as when Cochrane looked into Ivermectin.
I know you are a good researcher so I am not going to waste my time digging around for sources on this. But it looks like a study to keep at arms length, or even further.

up
8 users have voted.
Submitted by snoopydawg on Thu, 03/30/2023 - 5:48pm
snoopydawg's picture

@wouldsman

The Cochrane Mask Fiasco

Yep it’s clear as mud on the debate. One thing I noticed is that back when everyone was wearing masks the number of people who got infected still went up and I’m seeing people saying that even though they still wear their mask every time they go out they are still getting infected. The last one was by someone who got sick even though she wore hers at her doctors office where everyone there were also wearing masks.

One thing that is crystal clear tho is that surgical and cloth masks do not work and they never did. Especially cloth ones because the holes in the fabric are much bigger than viruses. And why weren’t there any randomized trials during the last 3 years?

Fauci sure didn’t help the debate by saying that masks wouldn’t work until he changed his mind and said they did.

I’m still a Rona virgin..knock on wood!

up
5 users have voted.
—

There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?

Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Thu, 03/30/2023 - 6:08pm
snoopydawg's picture

@snoopydawg

A summary of the scientific literature on the effectiveness of masking, both against respiratory infection generally and against COVID-19

Among the hallmark memes of the COVID-19 pandemic have been videos using special lighting and high‐​speed photography to visualize the dramatic differences in droplets emitted when a person sneezes with and without a mask. As if subtitling the visuals, an article in the New York Times explained that mask fibers “create a haphazard obstacle course through which air — and any infectious cargo — must navigate.”

Such vivid imagery promotes a misconception that the emission of infectious particles primarily occurs during forceful expiration such as sneezing. In fact, respiratory particles are emitted even when breathing. Little evidence suggests that frequent public sneezing during the pandemic has been a key driver of the virus’s spread.

It is debated whether larger “droplets” (greater than about 10 micrometers) or smaller “aerosols” containing the virus are more infectious. But aerosol transmission has been demonstrated or is considered likely for other respiratory infections such as H1N1 influenza, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), respiratory syncytial virus (a common virus among infants), and the 2003 SARS virus. When smaller particles evaporate, they can stay suspended in the air for long periods of time and be inhaled, potentially causing infection deeper in the respiratory tract and at lower concentrations. SARS‐​CoV‑2 viral particles have been detected in low‐​touch areas such as under beds and in air samples taken from hallways outside patient rooms, consistent with sustained aerosol distribution.

The greater the role of aerosols in spreading SARS‐​CoV‑2, the less important is the filtering capability of masks, because exhaled air easily flows around a mask’s edges. The extent to which droplets penetrate a mask has not been established as a reliable surrogate for the prevention of disease transmission

up
4 users have voted.
—

There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?

Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.

Submitted by wouldsman on Thu, 03/30/2023 - 9:22pm

@snoopydawg Thank you for taking my critique in the good nature it was meant.

My issue with applying real "science" and "data" to masking is this:
C 19 has had a different R value over time. IIRC correctly R means how many people you are likely to infect if you get the disease. (Anyone correct me on this, I am going by memory). Early in C19 the R value was low. Maybe 2 to 3? In the last several months it has moved up well into the teens and maybe even low 20's. As I interpret this that means it has become almost 10 times more transmissible than early on.
Wouldn't it be better to make a judgment about how well a mask works when a respiratory disease has an "R" below 5 as compared to how they work when a respiratory disease is above 15 in its R value? Because in my mind (just common sense here) if a disease is minimally transmissible then even a fairly low quality mask might be helpful. But as the transmissibility goes up then the quality of mask needs to also.
This is where I think the Chinese handled the pandemic well. They used isolation as a tool when it was likely to work well(low R). But dropped those policies once transmissibility was so high that nothing was going to stop it.
And in my opinion why the early lock downs were warranted. (EARLY). Isolate until you know the R value, then decide best course of action.

I have totally abandoned masking myself. But I still respect that others who want to remain intensely cautious are still doing it. Vitamin Iv for me!

up
6 users have voted.
Submitted by snoopydawg on Thu, 03/30/2023 - 10:12pm
snoopydawg's picture

@wouldsman

and less dangerous too which is usually what viruses do.

And in my opinion why the early lock downs were warranted. (EARLY). Isolate until you know the R value, then decide best course of action.

If we had actually really locked down it might have made a difference, but we were nowhere close to doing that. Too many people had to work and closing everything outside down and forcing people into their homes let it spread more easily. Plus we only canceled flights from China but let people in from Italy which also had a huge outbreak.

I think it was only dangerous for those who had poor immune systems like the elderly and people who had a few cormorbidities . Sorry I don’t know how to spell that. I don’t know if you follow Yeaden but he says that vaccines can’t work for the elderly because their immune systems don’t function very well anymore. It’s why flu shots don’t help most people even if they get the variant right.

It’s going to be interesting to see what future historians write about this time and say what we did right and wrong.

up
4 users have voted.
—

There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?

Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.

Submitted by QMS on Thu, 03/30/2023 - 3:17pm
QMS's picture

of which we are apparently leading the charge -
the speed of science, otherwise known as
Operation Warp Speed (sorry trekkies)
has been a huge failure for the masses
but a real bonanza for the profiteers
traditional science? not so much

drives me crazy

up
5 users have voted.
Submitted by dystopian on Thu, 03/30/2023 - 5:33pm
dystopian's picture

has no speed. There is no such thing as the speed of science, in science. The term had never been uttered by a scientist in world history, until Pfizer;'s marketing invented the phrase to make excuses for their shit. The speed of science only exists in sales and marketing campaigns.

I saw Obama say how the vax 'now has been tested or trialed on billions of people' in public. What a lying piece of shitstain he is.

A trial or test specifically records ALL THE RESULTS for analysis. In this speed of science BS almost no results were recorded. So, it was not a test, or a trial or they would have every bad reaction cataloged. Every possible reaction would be cataloged. Instead of all effort made to not do such, and to cover up and censor any such events or incidents. Repeated CDC goalpost moving regarding data collection, intentionally screwing your database to obscure what it shows is criminal when done with public dollars allegedly on public behalf and benefit.

No one gave informed consent, the people were willfully mis-informed.

There is nothing the government could have done to give the anti-vax crowd more better ammo. This is why they are now ready to hand over the decisions to the WHO. Because they know NO ONE WILL LISTEN to the bad boys that cried wolf now. What a bunch of incompetent idiots!

Thanks for the post SD!

up
6 users have voted.
—

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better.
both - Albert Einstein

Submitted by snoopydawg on Thu, 03/30/2023 - 5:56pm
snoopydawg's picture

@dystopian

I knew you would get a kick out of the speed of science. You did the first time it got posted here. Science is never settled either. I guess it can be proven, but only for as long until someone else comes along and disproves it. And don’t forget that Pfizer unmasked people in the control group and gave them the jab so that they could…..I’ll let people fill in that blank.

I saw Obama say how the vax 'now has been tested or trialed on billions of people' in public. What a lying piece of shitstain he is.

This is included in the video above… and yes he is! Clinton and Obama show what voting for the lesser evil gets us. Just more evil either way. The thing with the dem brand of evil though is that the dem base doesn’t fight against it like they do when republicans do their evil shit. Hence Clinton got everything that the base rejected when Bush tried to pass it.

up
4 users have voted.
—

There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?

Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.