Discover more from bad cattitude
"close your eyes and open your mouth" is no basis for public health policy
demanding real transparency into the data on vaccines is critical. let the sunshine in.
“open your mouth and close you eyes and you will get a big surprise!”
we all remember this game from childhood.
we all also likely remember some kids you would never, ever want to play this game with.
what if the FDA has become that kid?
is it really so far fetched given their behavior in the last 2 years?
aaron siri sums this up beautifully HERE.
Transparency regarding this product means, if nothing else, sharing the data the FDA relied upon to license this vaccine. The definition of “transparency” literally includes “accessibility of information.” So, when the FDA denies a request to expedite release of this data from a group of highly credentialed scientists from major universities across the country, is that transparency?
If the FDA is committed to transparency, why must a federal lawsuit be filed to timely obtain this data? Why has the FDA, weeks after the filing of a federal lawsuit, still not agreed to timely release this data? Why does the FDA persist in delaying its release when even federal law states that, once licensed, the “data and information in the biological product file [for the licensed vaccine] are immediately available for public disclosure.””
public health should be, well, public, shouldn’t it?
we’ve seen this time and time again all year. some data is sourced, manipulated, analyzed, and possibly outright made up in some quiet cloister somewhere. it gets called “peer reviewed” by 3 likeminded or outright conflicted friendlies, 2 schoolchildren, and their tame mouse “mr whiskers” and then gets passed off to a credulous public as if this is how science is done and as if “peer review” means “proven.”
it does not and never did.
“peer review” has become the most misused phrase in all of science. peer review is not supposed to be friendly. it’s supposed to be rigorous. it should not be hidden. it should be open.
it is also not the finish line, it’s the STARTING line. it means, “hey, have a look at this it seems interesting and passes the initial sniff test. come tear at it, come try to replicate it.”
anyone pushing “peer reviewed” as validation of conclusions is either seeking to dissemble or is a scientific illiterate. yes, 99% of american media, i’m looking at you…
remember what happened to surgispehere? that study was double peer reviewed, published in multiple top journals, and within 2 days on twitter proved to be flat out fabricated data with the fraud so blatant that even people who did not have access to the raw information could spot it. it was not even possible.
at the same time, they engage in an unprecedented smear campaign against ivermectin, a drug that DOES work and whose safety is excellent. they literally tried to call a drug taken by over a billion (with a b) people and that won the creators the nobel prize a “veterinary drug” because it’s also used in horses. i mean, so is penicillin. so what? amusingly, the CDC mandates it’s use on immigrants to the the US.
the drug companies clearly ran iffy trials. the pfizer data was more glamorshot selfie than rigorous study.
they used definitions for “vaccinated” that lumped issues caused by the vaccines into the unvaxxed cohorts.
they used definitions of “efficacy” that failed to take into account absolute risk reduction.
and they have systematically avoided real risk reward calculations and to hide and minimize adverse events.
VAERS is off the charts.
then they eliminated the control groups at 3 months, right when efficacy fade started to become pronounced.
it hardly seems out of line to wonder whether some other dirty games were played.
there’s quite the pattern of drug company/regulator shenanigans here.
so let’s get this data out. let’s get a look at all of it and put it in the public sphere where all can see and analyze it.
the public health priesthood has not earned our trust.
if they have nothing to hide, they should prove it by hiding nothing.
endless repetition of “vaccines are safe and effective” from the same people that will not provide the data so we can see for ourselves is simply not convincing. it’s very much the opposite.
they also told us vaccines would stop spread and THAT is clearly completely, totally wrong.
it’s LONG past time to let the sunshine in.
they are now looking to vaccinate the kids who mostly have already had covid, have incredibly low risk from disease, and do not seem to spread it to any real degree with a vaccine that has side effects FAR in excess of those for which any other vaxx in US history would have been pulled off the market.
that’s what vaccine safety standards generally look like.
not “8000 deaths and 38,000 hospitalizations.”
1% of that in one year, especially in young people, would have pulled any other vaccine in US history off the market.
this is WHY we trust vaccines to be safe.
because up until now, they were.
there was such trust in vaccines BECAUSE they were so thoroughly tested and held to such extraordinary standards. to give something to 100’s of millions of people, it needs to be.
that trust is being savagely abused though the slippery false equivalence of “past vaccines were safe. this is a vaccine. so this is safe.”
would you try an experimental opioid on that promise?
how about on this?
a program of this unprecedented size and speed using drug modalities new to humans and with a problematic history in animals should probably never happen at all, but at the very least it should have unprecedented transparency and absolute consumer choice.
it should be completely, totally on the level and out in the open.
it should also have full liability for the drug companies making billions off of it. this has become the biggest drug in the history of pharma. it now dwarfs lipator. put that in place and see if pfizer and moderna are keen to jab a billion arms.
after all, who better to know the risks?
but, obviously, that ship has sailed and they will face zero liability for their products.
they seem to be facing barely any more for the efficacy and risk reward of those products.
instead, it’s taking lawsuits to see the basic data upon which this monstrous divergence from any prior practice has been based.
this kind of rush job with zero visibility, accountability, or even liability is no basis for science, much less for trust.
is this really where you want your children? (or yourself?)