COVID vaccine revelation sinks like a stone; disappears<\/p>\n
In major media, certain stories gain traction. The trumpets keep blaring for a time before they fade.<\/p>\n
Other stories are one-offs. A few of them strike hard. Their implications\u2014if anyone stops to think about them\u2014are powerful. Then\u2026nothing.<\/p>\n
\u201cWait, aren\u2019t you going to follow up on that? Don\u2019t you see what that MEANS?\u201d<\/p>\n
Apparently not, because\u2026dead silence. \u201cIn other news, the governor lost his pet parakeet for an hour. His chief of staff found it taking a nap in a desk drawer\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
One-offs function like teasers. You definitely want to know more, but you never get more.<\/p>\n
Over the years, I\u2019ve tried to follow up on a few. The reporter or the editor has a set of standard replies: \u201cWe didn\u2019t get much feedback.\u201d \u201cWe covered it.\u201d \u201cIt\u2019s now old news.\u201d \u201cThere wasn\u2019t anything else to find out.\u201d<\/p>\n
Oh, but there WAS.<\/p>\n
A few weeks ago, I ran a one-off. The analysis and commentary were mine, but the story was an opinion piece in the New York Times. The Times called it an opinion piece to soften its blow. I suspected it would disappear, and it did.<\/p>\n
Its meaning and implication were too strong. It would be a vast embarrassment for the White House, the Warp Speed COVID vaccine program, the vaccine manufacturers, the coronavirus task force, and vaccine researchers.<\/p>\n
And embarrassment would be just the beginning of their problem.<\/p>\n
So\u2026here it is again. The vanished one-off, back in business:<\/p>\n
COVID vaccine clinical trials doomed to fail; fatal design flaw; NY Times opinion piece exposes all three major clinical trials.<\/em>\u00a0[2]<\/p>\n Peter Doshi, associate editor of the medical journal BMJ, and Eric Topol, Scripps Research professor of molecular medicine, have written a devastating NY Times opinion piece about the ongoing COVID vaccine clinical trials.<\/p>\n They expose the fatal flaw in the large Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna trials.<\/p>\n September 22, the Times:\u00a0\u201cThese Coronavirus Trials Don\u2019t Answer the One Question We Need to Know\u201d<\/em>\u00a0[1]:<\/p>\n \u201cIf you were to approve a coronavirus vaccine, would you approve one that you only knew protected people only from the most mild form of Covid-19, or one that would prevent its serious complications?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe answer is obvious. You would want to protect against the worst cases.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cBut that\u2019s not how the companies testing three of the leading coronavirus vaccine candidates, Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca, whose U.S. trial is on hold, are approaching the problem.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cAccording to the protocols for their studies, which they released late last week, a vaccine could meet the companies\u2019 benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cTo say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick. That\u2019s not what these trials will determine.\u201d<\/p>\n This means these clinical trials are dead in the water.<\/p>\n The trials are designed to show effectiveness in preventing mild cases of COVID, which nobody should care about, because mild cases naturally run their course and cause no harm. THERE IS NO NEED FOR A VACCINE THAT PREVENTS MILD CASES.<\/p>\n There. That\u2019s the NY Times one-off. My piece analyzing it went on much longer, but you get the main thrust:<\/p>\n The leading vaccine clinical trials are useless, irrelevant, misleading, and deceptive.<\/p>\n But now, it gets much worse. Because Pfizer has just announced their vaccine is almost ready. CNBC headline, November 9:\u00a0\u201cPfizer, BioNTech say Covid vaccine is more than 90% effective\u2014\u2018great day for science and humanity\u2019\u201d<\/em>\u00a0[3].<\/p>\n And not a peep about the NY Times one-off. That\u2019s gone, as if it never was.<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s coronavirus task force knows the truth. Biden\u2019s new task force, waiting in the wings, knows the truth. But they don\u2019t care. They\u2019re criminals. They\u2019d sell a car with a gas tank ready to explode to a customer with cash.<\/p>\n But you care, because you can read and think.<\/p>\n You can raise hell.<\/p>\n Now, in case anyone is interested in knowing WHY the major clinical trials of the COVID vaccine are designed only to prevent mild cases of COVID, I\u2019ll explain.<\/p>\n A vaccine maker assumes that, during the course of the clinical trial, a few of the 30,000 volunteers are going to \u201ccatch COVID-19.\u201d<\/p>\n They assume this because \u201cthe virus is everywhere,\u201d as far as they\u2019re concerned. So it\u2019ll drop down from the clouds and infect a few of the volunteers.<\/p>\n The magic number is 150. When that number of volunteers \u201ccatch COVID,\u201d everything stops. The clinical trial stops.<\/p>\n At this point, the vaccine maker hopes that most of the volunteers who \u201cgot infected\u201d are in the placebo group. They didn\u2019t receive the real vaccine; they received the saltwater placebo shot.<\/p>\n Then the vaccine maker can proudly say, \u201cSee? The volunteers who caught COVID-19? Most of them didn\u2019t receive the vaccine. They weren\u2019t protected. The volunteers who received the real vaccine didn\u2019t catch COVID. The vaccine protected them.\u201d<\/p>\n Actually, the number split the vaccine makers are looking for is 50 and 100. If 50 people in the vaccine group catch COVID, and 100 in the placebo group catch COVID, the vaccine is said to be 50% effective. And that\u2019s all the vaccine maker needs to win FDA approval for the vaccine.<\/p>\n But wait. Let\u2019s look closer at this idea of \u201ccatching COVID.\u201d What are they really talking about? How do they define that? Claiming a volunteer in the clinical trial caught COVID adds up to what?<\/p>\n Does it add up to a minimal definition of COVID-19\u2014a cough, or chills and fever? Or does it mean a serious case\u2014severe pneumonia?<\/p>\n Now we come to the hidden factor, the secret, the source of the whole con game.<\/p>\n You see, the vaccine maker starts out with 30,000 HEALTHY volunteers. So, if they waited for 150 of them to come down with severe pneumonia, a serious case of COVID, how long do you think that would take? Five years? Ten years?<\/p>\n The vaccine maker can\u2019t possibly wait that long.<\/p>\n These 150 COVID cases the vaccine maker is looking for would be mild. Just a cough. Or chills and fever. That scenario would only take a few months to develop. And face it, chills, cough, and fever aren\u2019t unique to COVID. Anyone can come down with those symptoms.<\/p>\n THEREFORE, THE WHOLE CLINICAL TRIAL IS DESIGNED, UP FRONT, TO FIND 150 CASES OF MILD AND MEANINGLESS AND SELF-CURING \u201cCOVID.\u201d<\/p>\n About which, no one cares. No one should care.<\/p>\n But, as we see, Pfizer is trumpeting their clinical trial of the vaccine as a landmark in human history.<\/p>\n And THAT\u2019S the story of the one-off the NY Times didn\u2019t think was worth a second glance.<\/p>\n Because they\u2019re so stupid? No. They\u2019re not that stupid.<\/p>\n They\u2019re criminals.<\/p>\n And the government wants you to take the experimental COVID vaccine, whose \u201ceffectiveness\u201d was designed to prevent nothing worth losing a night\u2019s sleep over.<\/p>\n The only worry are the adverse effects of the vaccine, about which I\u2019ve written extensively. These effects include, depending on what\u2019s in the vial, a permanent alteration of your genetic makeup, or an auto-immune cascade, in which the body attacks itself.<\/p>\n SOURCES:<\/p>\n [1] nytimes.com\/2020\/09\/22\/opinion\/covid-vaccine-coronavirus.html<\/p>\n [2] https:\/\/blog.nomorefakenews.com\/2020\/09\/24\/covid-vaccine-clinical-trials-doomed-to-fail-fatal-design-flaw\/<\/p>\n [3] https:\/\/www.cnbc.com\/2020\/11\/09\/covid-vaccine-pfizer-drug-is-more-than-90percent-effective-in-preventing-infection.html<\/p>\n
\n