Posted on 03/24/2021 10:34:34 AM PDT by ransomnote
This post is organized to present 4 points to consider, and then a few key questions regarding these considerations, and finally overall observations that together, I believe, demonstrate that the vaccines, and their ‘rushed’ trials are mixtures of fabrications.
Referencing his 30+ years of experience working in the vaccine industry, Dr. Yeadon makes the case that the PRC test renders false positive test results for approximately 90% of tests administered, and that false negatives are also reported. The publication date is 9/20/2020 at which time Dr. Yeadon states that he believes the vaccines will be pulled from the marked within 6 months following introduction.
From the article:
“Because of the high false positive rate and the low prevalence, almost every positive test, a so-called case, identified by Pillar 2 since May of this year has been a FALSE POSITIVE. Not just a few percent. Not a quarter or even a half of the positives are FALSE, but around 90% of them. Put simply, the number of people Mr Hancock sombrely tells us about is an overestimate by a factor of about ten-fold. Earlier in the summer, it was an overestimate by about 20-fold.”
Lies, Damned Lies and Health Statistics – the Deadly Danger of False Positives
3/22/2021, 10:13:02 AM · by ransomnote · 15 replies
lockdownsceptics.org ^ | September 20, 2020 | Dr Michael Yeadon
In the following article, the author makes the case that the PCR is invalid because it doesn’t identify the Covid-19 virus.
The PCR test identifies manufacturers’ specified strings of molecules (i.e., ‘primer sequenes’) said to be present in the Covid-19 virus.
From the article, “The CDC is using 12 different computer data base "primer" sequences, varying from 17 to 21 nucleotide sequences in a row to look for Covaids, the same sequence found in goats, papayas, river water, motor oil, etc.”
The same small sequence found in goats, papayas, your pyjamas”
“The WHO was using human Chromosome 8 as their test database “primer” sequence to detect Covaids, which was looking for the 18 in a row nucleotide sequence ctccctttgt tgtgttgt, which is found on the 8th out of the 23 pairs of chromosomal trees on all humans.“
https://images.hive.blog/DQmUtVYWuvrdvqvqqe9xwqQtu8QBPbKwJPDhPRTgtNqnXEy/image.png
From the article:
“A so called PCR "test" is NOT a test.
It's Nobel Prize winning inventor, Kary Mullis, himself was furious that it was being used for any such nonsense as it can neither “test” for anything nor prove how much of any detected genetic material is inside anybody, let alone tell anyone if whatever it does detect is the cause of any illness or disease or not.”
PLAGUE OF FEAR 2020 - Part 7 - THE NAIL IN COVID'S COFFIN
3/18/2021, 5:53:41 PM · by ransomnote · 11 replies
hive.blog ^ | Jan 31, 2020 | Steve Falconer, francesleader
https://images.hive.blog/DQmdj7E5B62nrFFJ8JHuDbcTuxEXSx2pEWtXx5eZGG6pKvJ/image.png
For example, the following is excerpted from Moderna’s Phase 3 trial report.
The primary efficacy analysis population (referred to as the Per-Protocol Set), included 28,207 participants who received two doses (at 0 and 1 month) of either Moderna COVID‑19 Vaccine (n=14,134) or placebo (n=14,073), and had a negative baseline SARS‑CoV‑2 status.
The median length of follow up for efficacy for participants in the study was 9 weeks post Dose There were 11 COVID‑19 cases in the Moderna COVID‑19 Vaccine group and 185 cases in the placebo group, with a vaccine efficacy of 94.1% (95% confidence interval of 89.3% to 96.8%).
Cases of COVID‑19, starting 14 days after Dose 2, were defined as symptomatic COVID‑19 requiring positive RT-PCR result and at least two systemic symptoms or one respiratory symptom.
Among all participants in the Per-Protocol Set analysis, which included COVID‑19 cases confirmed by an adjudication committee, no cases of severe COVID‑19 were reported in the Moderna COVID‑19 Vaccine group compared with 30 cases reported in the placebo group (incidence rate 9.138 per 1,000 person-years). One PCR-positive case of severe COVID‑19 in a vaccine recipient was awaiting adjudication at the time of the analysis.”
The following are just a few of the problems with using an invalid test to validate Covid-19 vaccine trials.
“In another promising medical development, the biotechnology company Moderna has announced its COVID-19 vaccine could be up to 94.5% effective.
The news comes a week after Pfizer announced its vaccine could be up to 90% effective based on a similar, early analysis from its Phase 3 trial.”
I think it’s reasonable to assume that vaccine trial participants were give the PCR ‘test’ repeatedly: at the start of the trial, after Dose 1, after Dose 2, and then routinely through the 4 or so weeks of monitoring following to see at what point they might supposedly contract (e.g., subject’s PCR ‘test’ positive 10 days after vaccine administration – too soon for vaccine to protect participant).
I think you can see where I’m going here. For the vaccine trials to be valid, the PCR test had to be valid. However the PCR test is not valid for this use, yet the many PCR ‘supposedly’ administered to 28,207 always tracked reliably to portray consistent, reliable, positive vaccine trial results
College students used to have two specific terms for false experimental data.
“Fudging the data”: After the experiment or study failed to return expected outcomes, the data was ‘modified’ to support the experimental hypothesis.
“Dry lab-ing”: While the experimental design specified in detail exacting laboratory and instrumentation critera, phases, tests etc., no actual lab work occurred (no need to wash out beakers, etc. as no real lab work took place).
I have to wonder just HOW the vaccine companies all came up with their data under the circumstances.
I’ll add one more problem with the scenario involving the development of the Covid mRNA vaccines that has me wondering. I haven’t given it a lot of thought but I believe there is something to it.
Initially I was posting that the mRNA technology upon which the mRNA vaccines were based was discovered in 2005; obtained Emergency Use Authorization and in 15 years since has failed to obtain FDA approval; conducted animal trials in 2005 and 2012 in which all animals (cats) developed anti-bodies and then when exposed to the virus being tested at the time (HIV, Hep C, other Coronaviruses), all animals died (their immune systems over-reacted).
Recently a FReeper has been reporting that there was in fact a successful trials which included "mice, ferrets, monkeys and interim report on human trials 2017" using the same nano mRNA technology underpining the Covid vaccines.
Suppressed Information About the Covid-19 Vaccine' | Vol 01 Date: 03/20/2021 (freerepublic.com)
The sources I had consulted made no mention of trials involving mice that survived. I was going to hunt for that data to see if it was correct, but now that I know the trials are worthless, I won’t bother.
Here’s the problem. The mRNA technology was considered an exciting find in 2005 because it could open the door to T-cell immunity which was otherwise little understood but believed to hold tremendous promise for human health.
The first animal trials took place in 2005 and failed. More work was done and the second round of animal trials was performed in 2012 and again met with failure. The mRNA technology under development for the past 15 years never reached human trials or obtained FDA approval.
If the FReeper is correct that trials involving mice which survived took place in 2017, why didn't the researchers move to begin full-scale trials with that technology? 3 years later that technology was modified for use in Covid-19 vaccines, but it seems like nothing happened with the platform technology until it was selected to for modification serve as the basis for the Covid-19 vaccines.
I wonder if I dig up information on this, might I find that Hillary Clinton was expected to win the 2016 election after which time her administration would have required mandatory vaccinations.
Our enemies want to reduce our population to a tame, manageable size. Just wondering. If you’ve seen the ‘Lock Down” scenarios, it does seem that the New World Order types have been planning their worldwide coup for some time, and one of the analyzed scnearios was a pandemic. And then we had Bill Gate’s symposium in 2019 walking through pandemic scenarios. Fauci funded Wuhan long before Wuhan’s ‘accidental’ release of a virus comprised of human/bat/HIV RNA material.
~~~~~~~~~~~
We’ve been betrayed in all aspects of the Planned-Demic since the engineered China virus was first deployed in Yuhan.
The sick were denied all treatment and told to go home until they needed hospitalization. How many illnesses could be spun into a fake Planned-Demic if the public were denied treatment? How can they claim to have a compassionate dedication to protecting us if they refuse us the right to try FDA approved medications when we’re dying?
HCQ and Ivermectin were FDA approved and in use with good track records for decades. The CDC not only banned the off-label use of these drugs during a time they declared an unprecedented medical emergency, they wouldn’t even award these drugs “Emergency Use Authorization” they would later grant their fake vaccines. They denied dying people the right to assume any risks in a final attempt to survive the illness.
They’ve lied to the public and told us the Covid-19 vaccines are FDA approved. Fauci himself said they were when asked on video. He then went on to craftily equate FDA approval with FDA authorization when he knows the difference.
Fauci is on video stating that asymptomatic spread does not drive epidemics; he’ll say whatever needs to be said to advance the narrative, and if it’s that asymptomic spread is devastating and we all have to shut down the economy, schools, and life stay home, he’s your guy.
45 Second Twitter Video Clip of Dr. Fauci Saying. ".... asympomatic spread is rare and historically not a driver of outbreaks. Symptomatic people drive outbreaks."
(sidenote: Fauci's NIH division collaborated with Pfizer to produce their Covid-19 vaccine and in particular, on those mouse trials.)
In the following video interview excerpt on Twitter, the inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, says Dr. Fauci is a liar and not qualified for the position he holds:
Text of Mullis’ comments:
“Guys like Fauci get up there and start talking, you know, he doesn’t know anything really about anything and I’d say that to his face. Nothing. The man thinks you can take a blood sample and stick it in an electron microscope and if it’s got a virus in there you’ll know it. He doesn’t understand electron microscopy and he doesn’t understand medicine and he should not be in a position like he’s in. Most of those guys up there on the top are just total administrative people and they don’t know anything about what’s going on in the body. You know, those guys have got an agenda, which is not what we would like them to have being that we pay for them to take care of our health in some way. They’ve got a personal kind of agenda. They make up their own rules as they go. They change them when they want to. And they smugly, like Tony Fauci does not mind going on television in front of the people who pay his salary and lie directly into the camera,”~ Kary Mullis
Where the Covid-19 vaccines are concerned, we’ve been denied informed consent which is required for us to balance the risks versus the benefits of having the vaccine.
All benefits of the vaccine are exaggerated because the spike protein is not specific to Covid-19; we’ve probably already encountered pathogens that caused our bodies to produce the spike proteins triggered by the vaccine. The benefits of the vaccine are non existant because the vaccine is predicated on fake vaccine trials and false positives etc.
The risks of having the vaccine are deleted, purged, and ridiculed as disinformation. Even as the CDC’s VAERS database shows the Covid vaccines are notably at the top of some key observed ‘event categories’ (ER visits, life threatening reactions, Deaths) out of 93 vaccines in just 2 months into their administration.
Silencing the discussion of risk, and therefore denying us informed consent violates the primary tennent of the Nuremberg Code of 1947.
They’ve lied to lock us down and force us to wear useless masks.
Is anyone still hoping that the tightening noose and assault on our rights and our bodies is suddenly going to stop, or better yet, improve? Is it logical to hope that, after telling us to expect that our lives will never be the same and we must henceforth live from vaccination, to vaccination, a life of masked social distancing, the vaccines will actually be a product of their (non existent) integrity and good will or that the vaccines will be worse than all measures leading up to it?
They want to hurt us, to kill us. They still won't allow us to use safe, FDA approved treatments for Covid, insisting we die without it instead in order to drive us to the vaccines. Is that not the obvious conclusion of the unending series of lies driving us like livestock through a maze of narrowing chutes toward enslavement and mandatory vaccinations?
Like we’re to believe CDC China Virus *death* counts.....lol.
(Don’t let anyone pull your leg, with that nonsense.)
~~~~~
I think you are intentionally pretending you don't get it. The results didn't show a 95% difference; that's the 'fake' part. They decided what percentage they needed and back calculated to know how many positives they needed. Supposedly, they did it repeatedly for 28 thousand people using an inaccurate test with results which are almost random - an impossibility unless they faked the data.
The problem with a “May Have” post is this:
It can be used for anything and everything. For example;
Birdseye’s bag of steam-able Brussel Sprouts MAY HAVE tiny GPS trackers in them.
Your real parents MAY HAVE sold you to the people that raised you and you believe they’re your real parents.
Intergalactic travelers from the Zuhn solar system MAY HAVE voted in the 2020 election for Biden.
You did very good on this morning’s post, I was going to tell you. It was interesting. But a “May Have” post, well...........just more conspiracy.
Yours: That's not necessarily a reasonable assumption and from what I know they didn't do routine PCR testing of the two populations at all.
Mine: They state they use PCR or symptoms, including a single symtom.
Even if they just tested before and after, their PCR test cannot render the results they claim because it's almost random. They can use symptom(s) to indicate respiratory illness but they cannot accurately say what caused that illness or combination of illnesses.
Yours: As you posted, Cases of COVID‑19, starting 14 days after Dose 2, were defined as symptomatic COVID‑19 requiring positive RT-PCR result.... The person had to have Covid symptoms and if so the diagnosis was confirmed by the PCR test.
Mine: That's circular logic. They can say they are symptomatic but the PCR test can't confirm the presence of Covid-19. They have no idea how many different respiratory illnesses or combination of illnesses were present among their sick trial participants.
Yours: Many more people who got the placebo had symptoms than those who got the vaccine.
Mine: That doesn't mean any of them were sick with Covid-19. There are countless respiratory illnesses out there.
Yours: People were only tested if they had symptoms, so it's possible many people who got the vaccine contracted asymptomatic disease, but note the manufacturers don't make any claims about efficacy against that.
Mine: It's just as well since they can't prove whether Covid was present in any symptomatic or asymptomatic trial participants.
Yours: To the overall point about false positives the nearly perfect correlation between positive case counts, hospitalizations and deaths indicates the tests are very often right.
Mine: They created a new term to describe healthy people: aymptomatic.
They made a new rule for this fake pandemic which required all persons dying within 60 days of a (false) postive PCR test must be declared as dying of Covid-19 (including deaths from car accidents, COPD, cancer). They then claimed that information proved the presence of asymptomatic illness.
If it is true the more common tests are just looking for a specific genetic sequence
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A link at the top about the PCR explains that it looks for sequences of compounds (not genes) which can be found in fruit, Coca Cola, motor oil etc.
David Chase MAY NOT understand that his strawmen and false metaphors are all lacking evidence, while Ransomnote's MAY has gobs of it, which she included in the body of the post.
On the other hand, David Chase MAY BE purposefully trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the viewing audience and he MAY KNOW completely well that his post is ridiculous on it's face.
Memes from Facebook or Twitter are only considered “proof” to the conspiracy theorist.
Most people want facts. Studies, papers written, peer reviews, lab results.
Everything is a “May Have” in the beginning of a conspiracy, then it grows into a “Did”............all without real facts but pages of memes and quotes from some dude on Twitter.
(and furthermore):
No, David Chase.
The things (studies, statements, etc) Ransomnote cited in her journalistic piece are either true or not true, and provably so. Just as the evidence of your 'conspiracy theory' is.
There is no 'conspiracy theory' about it.
Now we have to determine who's wrong and/or who's lying.
I got my money on the derp state.
You?
Side bet: I already know.
That doesn't mean any of them were sick with Covid-19. There are countless respiratory illnesses out there.
Now you're off the rails. Why would the control group have more cases with Covid-like symptoms than the vaccinated group?
Forget the positive PCR tests, we're talking symptoms.
They created a new term to describe healthy people: aymptomatic.
LOL. The correlation is between PCR positive cases, hospitalizations and deaths. Symptoms don't enter into it.
LOL. The correlation is between PCR positive cases, hospitalizations and deaths.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
You’re going to pretend PCR tests are valid so let’s just move on.
“I think you are intentionally pretending you don’t get it. The results didn’t show a 95% difference; that’s the ‘fake’ part. They decided what percentage they needed and back calculated to know how many positives they needed. Supposedly, they did it repeatedly for 28 thousand people using an inaccurate test with results which are almost random - an impossibility unless they faked the data.”
***********************************************************
The meaning of your above words are almost incomprehensible to me.
Do you understand that the LAB virus testing was done when a trial participant reported feeling SYMPTOMATIC? Feeling symptoms did not mean they had COVID-19. They could have had a cold or other infection. The lab testing was to determine whether they had the COVID-19 virus or not.
Do you understand that ALL the trial participants DID NOT KNOW WHETHER THEY HAD RECEIVED A PLACEBO OR AN ACTUAL VACCINE? Neither did ALL the people giving the shots know who got what shot. That’s what “double blind” means.
Do you understand that the clinical trial workers (to whom the trial participants reported that they felt symptoms) DID NOT KNOW WHETHER AN INDIVIDUAL TRIAL PARTICIPANT REPORTING SYMPTOMS WAS IN THE PLACEBO GROUP OR IN THE ACTUAL VACCINE GROUP. These workers were also “BLIND”. Every time a trial participant reported symptoms, a nasal swab sample was taken to be sent to the lab.
The LAB processing the nasal swabs DID NOT KNOW WHICH GROUP (PLACEBO OR VACCINE). The LAB and its workers were also “BLIND”.
The whole purpose of this BLINDING was to eliminate the possibility of INTENTIONAL OR UNINTENTIONAL BIAS OR CHEATING.
Merck is a large, reputable pharmaceutical company, too. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/merck-manipulated-science-about-drug-vioxx
There is no way anyone knows absolutely what Pfizer (or any company) would or wouldn’t do. I have no knowledge or evidence of any wrongdoing, just pointing out that simply being a large, reputable company doesn’t make it immune to shady doings. The almighty dollar is a scheming temptress. FWIW, I’m not signing up for the shot just yet, but I am also not saying “never”.
OK
Okay, I'll play along. I'm bored.
Memes From Facebook or Twitter are often derived from those things you mention. Sometimes they are satire to make an easy to consume point.
You know this, but you seek to tar this discussion with the dirty, dirty 8kun meme boyos. Nobody mentioned memes and you pulled that one out of your nalgitas. Another strawman.
Most people want facts. Studies, papers written, peer reviews, lab results.
Which Ransomnote was happy to provide in her well-researched journalistice piece. I didn't see any memes up there btw, hey?
Everything is a “May Have” in the beginning of a conspiracy, then it grows into a “Did”
Everything is based on something. There is a thing, and then people seek out the 'who, what, where, when, and why' of that thing.
We used to call that 'journalism' back when there was such a thing in this country. Now we have to do it ourselves (we are the news now), while people like you rely on that thing that took the place of journalism to feed you information.
............all without real facts but pages of memes and quotes from some dude on Twitter.
There you go again with the meme slam. See above for rebuttal.
As for twitter, it depends on who the 'dude' is. his record and reputation, and what evidence he provides (documentary, video, statements) to be able to determine its veracity and reliability.
Just like if you had read it in the newspaper of old or watched it on Walter Cronkite.
Because it is a new medium does not make it invalid. But again, you know this. You just attempt to disqualify any form of 'alt media' under the rubric of 'conspiracy theory' and the fact that any source that doesn't comply with your definition of 'media' is invalid.
I like to tell Humblegunner the bumpkin that its not the medium, its the message. Its the INFORMATION that's important, not how it is conveyed.
But. You. Know. This.
Or maybe, just maybe, you don't and you are a lot dumber than I take you for.
You MAY find real facts in the body of Ransomnote's journalistic piece, if you are so inclined to look for them.
Happy self-education.
The meaning of your above words are almost incomprehensible to me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
finally something we can agree on!
*ZING*
Why do I get the feeling he's not gonna get that?
You realize that I meant your words were illogical and lacked objective meaning?
Then why didn't you say that?
I recommend a writing class.
You can squeeze it in right after spelling class and logic class, down at the Adult Learning Center (ALC).
They may also have something on Researching and Etiquette.
Check it out. A man can never know too much.
Dude, have you and ransomnote never advanced emotionally beyond junior high? Seriously, folks try to engage you as adults when you post a “baffle them with BS” composition filled with errors and you respond like adolescents. Perhaps that’s the extent of your abilities? Or perhaps you do it or look for typos to avoid facing the SERIOUS deficiencies in your arguments?
Do you understand that the LAB virus testing was done when a trial participant reported feeling SYMPTOMATIC? Feeling symptoms did not mean they had COVID-19. They could have had a cold or other infection. The lab testing was to determine whether they had the COVID-19 virus or not.
Do you understand that ALL the trial participants DID NOT KNOW WHETHER THEY HAD RECEIVED A PLACEBO OR AN ACTUAL VACCINE? Neither did ALL the people giving the shots know who got what shot. That’s what “double blind” means.
Do you understand that the clinical trial workers (to whom the trial participants reported that they felt symptoms) DID NOT KNOW WHETHER AN INDIVIDUAL TRIAL PARTICIPANT REPORTING SYMPTOMS WAS IN THE PLACEBO GROUP OR IN THE ACTUAL VACCINE GROUP. These workers were also “BLIND”. Every time a trial participant reported symptoms, a nasal swab sample was taken to be sent to the lab.
The LAB processing the nasal swabs DID NOT KNOW WHICH GROUP (PLACEBO OR VACCINE). The LAB and its workers were also “BLIND”.
The whole purpose of this BLINDING was to eliminate the possibility of INTENTIONAL OR UNINTENTIONAL BIAS OR CHEATING.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think you don’t quite grasp what is meant by the word, “cheating”.
I know what “double-blind” means.
I know that the vaccine contains a spike protein unrelated to the Covid-19 virus, but specified for other (common) Corona Virus. There is zero scientific proof that the vaccine protected a single participant from contracting Covid-19.
The adverse reactions to the vaccine indicate runaway auto-immune response (triggered an uncontrolled immune response) and there is fear on the part of industry experts and physicians that the Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ can cause both long-term auto-immunity and immune deficiency.
So there isn’t a question of whether the vaccine can raise immunity to some diseases, but there is zero scientific proof that the vaccine worked against Covid-19. This is by design; thee CDC, NIH and vaccine developers purposefully selected and continue to use the PCR.
I can’t post everything I know about the subject every time I respond - this takes time. The vaccine companies are lying about there products elsewhere and have been complicit in the planned-demic and in the case of Pfizer, are working hand-in-glove with the disreputable Fauci.
I demonstrated at the end of the thread post that we have no reason to assume that after killing as many people as possible (withholding safe, effective treatments) and destroying the economy every step of the way, and choosing failed technology long known to pose risks of ADE, they would then produce a vaccine to help us.
So much of the lies and deception regarding the Covid-19 planned-demic and the ‘vaccine’ are publicly in our faces every day that I no longer see the need to point out that all the vaccine companies, along with CDC and NIH etc. KNOWINGLY selected the PCR test given it’s obvious lack of validity and over the objections of the inventor of the PCR.
So I moved ahead of you in my reasoning to discard the ridiculous idea that the trials were the result of their conscientious good will toward us, and instead believe they pocketed most or all of the billions and faked a double-blind trial that ensure them of billions more to come, and the strategic success of their population reduction goals.
They are knowingly lying when they claim no isolated sample of the Covid-19 virus exist, concealing the manufactured nature of the virus (biowarfare) and thwarted the capacity of white hats outside their Deep State network to use such a sample to develop treatments/vaccines that work, let alone understand the virus at all. How much does it take to impact your thinking?
All these are crimes against humanity and treason. Filtering this information into my understanding along with the rest of the world, I do not feel they would hesitate to violate double-blind protocols (they peeked) or fabricate the trial from the ground up.
I don’t know if you’ll understand this because as far as I can tell, you require capital letters to communicate. No, I’m not going to waste my time editing this post - deal with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
