Agreed. If you are not familiar with scientific papers then this is a great introduction into manipulation of science by those in positions to influence public policy.
Excellent editorial analysis by Dr Robert Malone. I concur completetly. PS sounds like they might use it to push higher or more frequent toxins into the litle children. We have to keep trying to shut this down before April's FDA/CDC/Pfizer push, in my opinion.
Clear as a bell and don’t we all wish Dr Malone was a reviewer for all of these spirited, but biased studies presented for review and publication. Dr. Malone’s use of the three strikes and your out analogy seems fitting for this study. Sadly most of us do not have access to medical journals. Because if we did, he gave us a very good template to judge the quality of a study, even as a Kay person💕💕
I saw this note under table 2 of the study: “Negative VE values observed in later timepoints likely reflect estimator instability and/or residual confounding, as opposed to true relatively-
increased risk for those vaccinated.” I’d like the authors to let us know just how likely, if that’s OK. I don’t need any statistics. They could use “really, really likely,” or maybe “more likely than not.” Just ballpark it. After all, we’re just vaccinating kids.
Robert Malone has been saying many right things for a while which we are all glad to be hearing. But he has a very long history, as he points out himself, in what might be termed "the vaccine/virus game" that raise some questions, in my mind (for one), and I'm wondering to what extent, Jessica, you and others who follow your substack have examined this history with a critical eye. Would love to see Malone interviewed by a someone with indepth awareness of his career and activities over time who was also willing and capable of asking penetrating and illuminating questions. Forgive my not specifying my suspicions, i.e., questions, re Malone. But those questions are already out there for those who have been following the narratives.
More important than vaccine effectiveness results is the lesson Malone gives on how to think properly about (analyze) the paper. This seems to be where things are falling apart for many people. The fear does not help rationality. Morpheus: "This is Zion, and we are not afraid!" www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY5VqsgpENQ
In addition to the critique that Malone puts forth, I would add: Where is the proof that covid, omicron or any of the other variants have actually been isolated and viewed as an intact virus? Computer generated, 'cut and paste' "viruses" don't count. It seems like a paper about ghosts is unworthy right out of the gate.
Taking the time and effort to review this document lends it far too much credibility.
Jessica, I know you examine raw data. I see the Pfizer court ordered documents for March 1, 2022, have been released. I imagine this document would be of interest to examine, but you'd have to get a utility to convert it from PDF to Word, then you can accept corrections, to see it in a form that is readable.
Agreed. If you are not familiar with scientific papers then this is a great introduction into manipulation of science by those in positions to influence public policy.
Excellent editorial analysis by Dr Robert Malone. I concur completetly. PS sounds like they might use it to push higher or more frequent toxins into the litle children. We have to keep trying to shut this down before April's FDA/CDC/Pfizer push, in my opinion.
A-men! Thanks Jessica!
Agreed, one of Malone's very best articles.
Their conclusion is pure propaganda/agenda b..s..! I'm sooo sick of this "chimeric" defamation of True Science and Research.
Just read this peer review on Malone’s substack. *Very educational*. Thank you for republishing it here!
Rosenberg was also lead author of the infamous NY hospital study (May 2020) which downplayed the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine against Covid.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7215635/#__ffn_sectitle
Clear as a bell and don’t we all wish Dr Malone was a reviewer for all of these spirited, but biased studies presented for review and publication. Dr. Malone’s use of the three strikes and your out analogy seems fitting for this study. Sadly most of us do not have access to medical journals. Because if we did, he gave us a very good template to judge the quality of a study, even as a Kay person💕💕
I saw this note under table 2 of the study: “Negative VE values observed in later timepoints likely reflect estimator instability and/or residual confounding, as opposed to true relatively-
increased risk for those vaccinated.” I’d like the authors to let us know just how likely, if that’s OK. I don’t need any statistics. They could use “really, really likely,” or maybe “more likely than not.” Just ballpark it. After all, we’re just vaccinating kids.
1. There is no such thing as "independent" peer review (PR).
2. Former journal editors have said that "a PR can mean anything or nothing".
3. At least 50% of PR "studies" were bogus since they could not be replicated.
Robert Malone has been saying many right things for a while which we are all glad to be hearing. But he has a very long history, as he points out himself, in what might be termed "the vaccine/virus game" that raise some questions, in my mind (for one), and I'm wondering to what extent, Jessica, you and others who follow your substack have examined this history with a critical eye. Would love to see Malone interviewed by a someone with indepth awareness of his career and activities over time who was also willing and capable of asking penetrating and illuminating questions. Forgive my not specifying my suspicions, i.e., questions, re Malone. But those questions are already out there for those who have been following the narratives.
Sucharit Bhakti said "if you take these jabs you will go to your doom." That's all I need to know.
And Biden is urging Ukrainians to protect themselves: "Get vaccinated!"
More important than vaccine effectiveness results is the lesson Malone gives on how to think properly about (analyze) the paper. This seems to be where things are falling apart for many people. The fear does not help rationality. Morpheus: "This is Zion, and we are not afraid!" www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY5VqsgpENQ
In addition to the critique that Malone puts forth, I would add: Where is the proof that covid, omicron or any of the other variants have actually been isolated and viewed as an intact virus? Computer generated, 'cut and paste' "viruses" don't count. It seems like a paper about ghosts is unworthy right out of the gate.
Taking the time and effort to review this document lends it far too much credibility.
https://secularheretic.substack.com/p/does-the-covid-virus-exist?utm_source=url
https://secularheretic.substack.com/p/does-the-covid-virus-exist-2?utm_source=url
Jessica, I know you examine raw data. I see the Pfizer court ordered documents for March 1, 2022, have been released. I imagine this document would be of interest to examine, but you'd have to get a utility to convert it from PDF to Word, then you can accept corrections, to see it in a form that is readable.
https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M5_c4591001-T-S-final-reacto-tables-track.pdf
This document was obtained perusing and examining a host of documents dumped on this date from Pfizer. https://phmpt.org/pfizers-documents/
txs, Malone did a nice didactic job on that!