Thank you. Great interview. One suggestion for an edit to your referendum statement. Since the evidence of harm is overwhelming it would be completely unethical to do any more safety testing, in either humans or animals. Therefore, I would change your referendum statement to refer instead to independent analysis of existing safety data. Important distinction.
I signed The Hope Accord too. The scale of the adverse impact on life, limb and liberty, on deaths, disability and injury, is the worst scenario ever to have been inflicted on man. Biblical would not be an overstatement.
Further note, the reason the studies the doctors are looking at (clinical trials and postmarketing studies) suggest the jabs reduce hospitalisation when the opposite is actually true is because of two methodology flaws as follows: 1) they look at covid events only (e.g. covid hospitalisations) not all-cause hospitalisation. Individual Patient Data analysis of Gloucestershire NHS Trust data by Joel Smalley shows more non-covid hospitalisation in vaccinated (properly defined) vs unvaccinated than potential covid hospitalisations mitigated. 2) Then the apparent benefit on covid outcomes (covid ‘cases’, covid hospitalisations, covid deaths) themselves (with initial high relative effectiveness followed by waning) have been shown by Prof Norman Fenton to be a statistical illusion, created by the definition of ‘vaccinated’ being that your not categorised as ‘vaccinated’ until 7, 14 or 21 days after being injected. In a review of how widespread this flaw was, 38 papers reporting apparent benefit all had some variation of this miscategorisation bias. I’ve seen a paper reporting that these methods were recommended by the CDC, who I understand had 2 patents relating to coronavirus. So, through misdirection of attention (look over here, not over there) and by statistical illusion in the area they did direct people’s attention to, they misled the medical profession and population alike. Now that has to be of use in legal cases(?)
Excellent interview & information. One of the best & most important so far
Thank you Ian!!
Thank you. Great interview. One suggestion for an edit to your referendum statement. Since the evidence of harm is overwhelming it would be completely unethical to do any more safety testing, in either humans or animals. Therefore, I would change your referendum statement to refer instead to independent analysis of existing safety data. Important distinction.
I signed The Hope Accord too. The scale of the adverse impact on life, limb and liberty, on deaths, disability and injury, is the worst scenario ever to have been inflicted on man. Biblical would not be an overstatement.
Further note, the reason the studies the doctors are looking at (clinical trials and postmarketing studies) suggest the jabs reduce hospitalisation when the opposite is actually true is because of two methodology flaws as follows: 1) they look at covid events only (e.g. covid hospitalisations) not all-cause hospitalisation. Individual Patient Data analysis of Gloucestershire NHS Trust data by Joel Smalley shows more non-covid hospitalisation in vaccinated (properly defined) vs unvaccinated than potential covid hospitalisations mitigated. 2) Then the apparent benefit on covid outcomes (covid ‘cases’, covid hospitalisations, covid deaths) themselves (with initial high relative effectiveness followed by waning) have been shown by Prof Norman Fenton to be a statistical illusion, created by the definition of ‘vaccinated’ being that your not categorised as ‘vaccinated’ until 7, 14 or 21 days after being injected. In a review of how widespread this flaw was, 38 papers reporting apparent benefit all had some variation of this miscategorisation bias. I’ve seen a paper reporting that these methods were recommended by the CDC, who I understand had 2 patents relating to coronavirus. So, through misdirection of attention (look over here, not over there) and by statistical illusion in the area they did direct people’s attention to, they misled the medical profession and population alike. Now that has to be of use in legal cases(?)
many thanks for this useful edit suggestion to the referendum policy read out in the interview. we will embrace your sugestions.