10/3/2021, 3:50:11 PM · by ransomnote
icij.org ^ | October 3, 2021 | Emilia Díaz-Struck, Delphine Reuter, Agustin Armendariz, Jelena Cosic, Jesús Escudero, Miguel Fiando
Los Angeles, CA — Why the push for COVID-19 vaccine mandates? It cannot be concern for public health. Although natural immunity confers more robust and lasting protection than vaccines, mandates do not waive jabs for those who have acquired it (at least 30 percent of the U.S. population by some estimates).
Why this seeming contempt by public officials for the human immune system, which has fortified us for millennia against scores of contagions much deadlier than COVID-19? One reason: no one makes money off the human immune system. In more ways than one, natural immunity prevents Big Pharma from making a killing.
But anti-mandate activists have overlooked an even more sinister motivation. The need to eradicate the control group, unvaccinated individuals. They are the only yardsticks by which the efficacy and safety of vaccines can be measured. What are the comparative mortality rates between the controls and the vaccinated (for all causes, not merely COVID)? Who is better off?
We don’t know. Any more than we know if the vaccinated become healthier or sicker than controls in follow-up studies? (By this I refer not only to the incidence of COVID illness, but to other parameters of illness. If previously healthy Mildred, a middle-aged housewife, strokes out two days after the jab so she can never again function, that development merits at least equal billing with whatever improved resistance to COVID she acquires.)
But shouldn’t these inquiries have been the first order of research business, especially for experimental inoculations in a Phase III trial? Yet not a single, well-designed such study exists. Why have universities, medical centers, and our government ignored such inquiry? Simple. They do not want to document the facts about “vaccines.” And they don’t want you to discover them.
For the past century the control group, the aggregate of subjects that have not received experimental treatment, has been the sine qua non of sound medical research. The medical community accepts only drugs and procedures that produce results surpassing those produced in untreated controls. This has been dogma. Until 2020.
Control groups function as checks against researchers’ overconfidence, wishful thinking, erroneous generalizations, delusions, and falsifications. They deter compliance with the demands of pharmaceutical profiteers to produce predetermined data.
In this manner, controls challenge authoritarian dictates. Big Brother cajoles us to love the jabs. Yet why does vaccinated Johnny lie tethered to an ICU monitor, succumbing to his myocarditis, while a control, his unvaccinated classmate Billy, shoots hoops at the gym? As nature’s truth-tellers and witnesses, control groups are the nemeses of medical tyrants. They are the Winston Smiths of COVID totalitarianism.
Accordingly, vaccine mandates strive to abolish COVID-19 control groups. Once controls receive the jabs and spike proteins surge through their organs, they are controls no more. Their survival and well-being can no longer challenge official orthodoxy. If they sicken or die after the jab, the cause of their demise can never be proven, for now, they are sick like everyone else.
Absent healthy controls, authorities will shift the blame for the resulting massive outbreaks of illness — autoimmune diseases, strokes, heart failures, deadly cytokine storms that begin as common colds — to scapegoats like super-deathstar-omega variants, climate change, and Donald Trump. Without controls, no one will ever know how toxic and ineffectual the inoculations really are. The extinction of controls eliminates all trace of what might have been. Of what really is.
However, the erasure of COVID-19 control groups did not start with the mandates. It began with Moderna’s and Pfizer’s clinical trials. For a while, the controls received a placebo and not the test vaccine. So far, so good. But after the FDA granted the vaccines emergency use authorization, the developers provided the vaccine to almost all controls, thereby eliminating any significant control group and transforming their study into an unethical shell game. Now you see the controls, now you don’t. Because of this violation of research protocol, we know nothing about long-term benefits or risks. The absence of controls means that the promotion of these vaccines is grounded in fraud.
The FDA used to function as Big Pharma’s bunco squad, rooting out false claims of efficacy and safety. That was then. Now that burden is on each of us.
About the author: Graduate of the Columbia College of Physicians & Surgeons, Steven Goldsmith, MD maintains a practice in Los Angeles specializing in natural solutions to mental health problems.
https://thelibertyloft.com/2021/10/03/opinion-the-war-against-control-groups/
Note my comment below listing the donors for the ICIJ. Very interesting. What is the motive for this endeavor, one wonders.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3999784/posts?page=725#725
I am about tapped out with all that I can come up with for the flyer. I will be posting my myth-fact sets for this later this evening.
Based on Freepmail I received about this, I wanted to explain “my vision” for this flyer because I evidently did not make it clear earlier.
Thank you to all who wrote me with feedback.
My thinking about this flyer is explained in the points below, in no particular order.
1. There is no telling what will will work to persuade any one individual. People are different, and different things work on different people.
2. This flyer is simply an attempt to use one technique-basically reverse psychology- on the theory that it will work on some people whereas other techniques have failed.
3. A lot of people believe myths about Covid-19 that are simply not true, such as that it results in high rates of hospitalization among people of various ages.
4. You will find that in some cases the “myths” in the flyer are not that far from the “facts.” This is purposeful. I don’t want to hit people head-on with harsh differences between the two because I think people are too dug-in to their positions. And I want it to be a bit mysterious as to who, or what kind of people, this flyer is coming from.
5. For instance, if I present a “myth” such as, “25% of all people who get Covid must be hospitalized for it” and then a “fact,” such as “only 5% of people are hospitalized,” I am afraid the document gives the appearance as coming from a right-wing nutter trying too hard to argue that Covid-19 is overblown.
6. By framing the myth more as “Very few people are hospitalized for Covid” and then the fact that up to 5% are hospitalized, the reader might scratch his head a bit and say, “Wait, is that a typo? Did they mean 50, not 5? I have to look this up. Five isn’t that high really and not much different than a few. I’m confused.”
7. The reader doesn’t really have to look it up so much as type in the information for the parenthetical (or endnote- I haven’t decided) source given on the flyer. Most of the sources are middle of the road or left of center.
8. The sets are meant to be a tad confounding— but hopefully not confusing— and will hopefully provoke curiousity in some people.
9. A primary audience for the flyers would be college or high school students, who might be starting to get tired of all the Covid rules and starting to question what is going on.
10. The header at the top of the flyer will be something like, “Alarming myths Covid skeptics believe about the danger of Covid and facts to refute them.” There will be nothing more said and no made-up name of the “group” putting out the flyer. The less said, the more mysterious these flyers appear. The more mysterious, the more confounding.
I am hoping the header itself is mysterious and people wonder:
“What is really so alarming about these myths? Who exactly are the Covid skeptics? Covid deniers? Covid alarmists?”
_________________________
Back in grad school, I had to take a required theory class. The first day, the professor handed out a sheet with 20 questions. It was an exercise to prepare us for the idea that his theory class was going to blow our mind and require us to think about things in a whole new light.
I kept that paper with questions and used it in teaching my own classes. I don’t know where it is now, but I remember two questions.
1. What animal in Africa kills the most people?
2. How far can a person run into the woods?
Some people gave lions as the answer. Boring. A couple people said crocodiles. This is better in that crocs kill more people than do lions. A couple gave hippos. I’m not sure they kill more than crocs do, but kudos to these students for knowing hippos are meaner than many people realize and are considered dangerous.
A few out-of-the-box thinkers gave man as the answer, per all the sectarian conflict in Africa. There are certainly more deaths at the hand of human animals than all other mammals and reptiles combined per year in Africa.
But the correct answer is mosquitos. Not many people thought that small.
For the woods question, some people said it depends on fitness level and will differ by individual. Other said until it gets dark or the person trips and sprains an ankle. Some people gave miles or times at which the average person will have reached the end of his endurance.
The correct answer is halfway. Once you run and reach the halfway point in the woods and you continue running, you are running out of the woods.
Only a few people got that.
There was an interesting correlation between the quality of answers and how well people did in the course.
Anyway, think of the flyers like this little test in that the flyers are meant to scramble and hopefully open up people’s brains a bit about Covid, just like the 20 questions and discussing the answers was meant to open our brains and prepare us for a theory course.