Stop Bitching. Start Building
Strike the root: Peer Review
Finally we are seeing healthy and mature debates on Twitter Spaces regarding the effectiveness of the Vaccines. Hats off to Mario Nawfal for hosting a mature debate on the topic. It is worth a listen. There is more agreement than I expected.
People agree. We need to save lives.
People agree on both sides that informed consent is paramount.
People agree that censorship cannot coexist with informed consent.
People agree, coercion has no place in medicine.
There is thankfully little distraction over the origin of the pandemic and all of the theatrics regarding the potency of GOF research and “who dun it”. This is an important topic to prevent a mandemic sequel but it is secondary to stopping the immediate jabbing of children.
As Dr. Ah Kahn Sayed so nicely focused things in his substack “It Doesn’t Matter”. The sharp focus should be ending this poisonous administration of C19 vaccines and prosecuting the parties that abused Fiat medicine. They abused peoples faith in Science while defraying liability and laundering their actions through unaccountable government agencies.
While I disagree on minor points in this blog regarding how quickly a virus mutates (not as fast as he suggests) and how much cross reactivity qPCR may have on different strains (very little, the issue isn’t X-reactivity but slow RNA clearance and months of non-infectious PCR positivity) …. It doesn’t matter.
Even if a GOF virus can circle the globe and evolve into the more virulent Delta variant, the government’s response to it has magnified its ‘death-print’ from something that would have gone un-noticed to a lockdown served with a cold rearrangement of the global monetary system. This was the largest wealth transfer in human history. As Carlin likes to say “Its a big club and you ain’t in it”.
In other words, the censorship and narrative control was and STILL is so strong they could have pulled this off with HCoV-229E and our nuanced differences don’t matter.
Even with Musk partially freeing up Twitter, they still have control and that control is miles ahead of where the secondary twitter debates occur.
Its roots are in Peer Review.
Stop yelling at clouds
What was very clear from the Nawfal debate is that the physicians that still advocate “COVID more harmful than Jab” are too busy treating patients to read the supplements. As a result, they must place their faith in the NEJM, Nature, The Lancet Science, and the PI with biggest N number wins in their mind. Sadly, media outfits like the NYTimes are equally deferential to this appeal to authority and have single handedly solved the toilet paper crises by printing just as worthless papyrus contaminated with cultish ink and wokeful bromides.
The Thailand study that Steve Kirsch raised was brushed off in a manuscript ‘dick measuring’ contest, despite Pierre Kory reminding him (A physician named Dr. Eugene Gu) that size didn’t matter and was in fact a signature of large pharma funding that shouldn’t be trusted.
Pierre was right and I have the receipts.
This section will upset the reader and don’t take this out on Dr Gu. He was brave enough to have a debate. He showed up. He debated in good faith and was cordial. That is all we can ask for and I commend him for being stronger than his peers who dodge this debate.
Barda et al. The Israeli study that appears to be the corner stone of all “COVID worse than Jab” arguments.
Yup. Israel. That country that lost the contract they signed to make their entire country an experimental Pfizer rat cage.
As you page through this manuscript, take note of all the advertisements plastered over this highly cited manuscript.
What Dr. Eugene Gu didn’t take note of is the most important section of any manuscript: The conflict disclosures.
They should be the first thing you read but instead you’re given this baffling statement in the manuscript.
Huh?
It’s like the woman (Kathryn Edwards) on the data safety monitoring board not understanding what a conflict is.
The journals, that have lots of advertisement revenue from Pharma, like to put the conflict disclosures in fine print at the bottom of the paper.
If you click on this tab, you can see all the conflicts the Authors were willing to admit to. Quite often there are more conflicts than those that get disclosed in these forms and even when you point out undisclosed conflicts to journals after something has published, they are very reluctant to make changes. So authors tend to lean toward “Catch me if you can” philosophy in conflict disclosure. If you don’t believe me, reach out to Mat Crawford regarding his work on the HCQ wars and Boulware’s pharma games.
So what do we have in this Bedrock of “COVID worse than Jab” paper?
Brought to you by Pfizer. Lead Author, Communicating Author, 8 authors in total declaring Pfizer supports the employer where the study was conducted.
It is worth taking Pause on how many influential authors on this publication have Pfizer money ‘unrelated to the work’ but the winner that takes the cake is Marc Lipsitch whose Pharma rap sheet is so long they needed extra pages. Marc was quite public on Twitter defending lockdowns. Jay Bhattacharya kindly debated him despite Marc vocally mischaracterizing Jay as a “Let it Ripper”.
Anyone familiar with Surgisphere understands that Dr. Gu’s “biggest study” fallacy is easily dismantled once you get into the habit of reading beyond the Abstract and headlines. There are other problems with the cohort selection in this study and looking at Israels excess mortality post vaccination doesn’t support this study.
I understand the Israeli Ministry of Health has been under some scrutiny for its trustworthiness during the pandemic.
Stop Bitching. Start Building.
Many people are filing law suites to rebuild our governance bodies. I commend these efforts. Many heros like Jenin Younes (via Jay B, Martin, K Aron K) and John Beaudoin are Building not Bitching.
But this will repeat itself if we let Peer review remain unchanged. We need to decentralize the peer review process so the incumbent advertisers and woke mob running these journals can’t so easily weaponize them as tools of their cultish narrative.
There is a group organizing in the Medical Freedom community to build this future.
If you think you can help and want to build instead of bitch: Reach out. The blockchain based tools to do this are mature and easy to implement. It is really just about getting many scientists on board with its necessity and we can prevent this from happening again.
Nothing is more important to human progress than decentralizing our truth engine.
The problem is as old as time but this time it IS different. Distributed ledgers and cryptography mitigate the pharma-capture risks present in the existing scientific publishing market.
We’d be crazy to leave that attack surface lying around for the next Fauciocentricity to take hold.
Such an important aspect of saving civilization. I see this adjacent to a medical ethics project that conceived more than a year ago. Ethics plays a big part of this. I don't understand the block chain part, but if it solves a major obstacle, let's do it.
While he is a critic of peer review in general, I feel like Denis Rancourt is a great example by publishing much of his own research at denisrancourt.ca (his website).
He is also starting a new initiative at correlation-canada.org that seems to be the next level up, while not quite reaching the heights of what you've described here. Hopefully as more academics get together motivated to tackle this problem, enough demand will materialize.
Edit: Forgot to also mention Kevin McCairn who aims to crowdfund and livestream research through various platforms synapteklabs.com