1. "Operation Warp Speed" or how to develop'n produce vaccine in 14 months instead of 73.
With 14 months timeline ending on 1/1/2021🧐🗓️
We should probably read april, but that's a detail… media.defense.gov/2020/Aug/13/20…
2. 12-month FDA review is replaced by a continuous control of safety and efficacy data.
It really must have been a tremendous work to inspect hundreds of trial sites and dozens of manufacturing units…
3. But this @USGAO report tells us that only 58 #FDA biological inspections were conducted from April 2020 to March 2021, up from 1,500 in the previous 12 months. <30 before December. files.gao.gov/reports/GAO-22…
4. Among these inspections, we find, for the 33 Covid vaccine sites: 2 Moderna sites, 2 Janssen, 1 Novavax, 1 GSK.
None for Pfizer after mid-2019.
Completed by 7 EUA investigations and 2 site visits.
Amply sufficient, right?
5. But guess who's the designer of Operation Warp Speed?
Dr Peter Marks, top vaccine regulator for FDA.
Responsible for safety and… on-time delivery, with help from Pentagon. Quite the job! nytimes.com/2020/11/21/us/…
6. Because, for #Trump, the priority is to announce the vaccine before November election.
It will be missed by a few days🤏🏼 #Bourla and #Bancel probably had nothing to gain from having their results acclaimed by a campaigning president.
A little discretion couldn't hurt.🐾
7. The @nytimes paper also describes how Pfizer broke away from standard testing rules by consulting the data too early and too often.
8. So when @USGAO's report shows a heartbreakingly reduced level of control, shouldn't we consider that #FDA just acted as an auxiliary of #Pfizer & #Moderna, with no right to failure, seemingly.
9. Is the #Ventavia affair revealed by the #BMJ only a rotten apple in a big basket or a patch that drops on the wall of a toxic sludge tank?
And this only concerns clinical trials, not vaccine production conditions🧐 bmj.com/content/375/bm…
10. As for the 9 RCT inspections quoted by the BMJ investigation, if someone manages to find them in the #FDA base, they are really well hidden. I could not. datadashboard.fda.gov/ora/cd/inspect…
#France #Natalité
Ben il arrive quand ce "réarmement démographique" annoncé ?
J'ai bien l'impression qu'il faudra d'abord un "réenchantement démocratique" si on veut s'en sortir.
[1/5]
🇬🇧#UK
It appears that the statisticians of @ONS are playing the same trick on us as their colleagues 🇯🇵.
Indeed, based on the deaths recorded in the civil registry as you see them⤵️, they calculate for 2024 an UNDER-MORTALITY of -8,0% (532k observed vs 578k "expected")
[1/8]
@ONS This is clearly seen on this graph, where the bars are consistently well below the dark blue marks for 2024.
Src:
How can we go from +4.5% to -8.0%?
[2/8] ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati…
@ONS By downloading the data for this graph, we understand the miracle a little better!
Like, in Japan, the "expected" (estimated deaths, calculated by a model) first jumped by +4.3% in 2023, then by +8.5% in 2024.
i.e. +13,1% between 2022 and 2024.
[3/8]
People ask me what post-Covid mortality might look like in a country that has had very little vaccination.
My only example with recent data is Romania, probably the worst for boosters.
Src: Eurostat + vaccinetracker.ecdc.europa.eu/public/extensi…x.com/_aussie17/stat…
Correction: Following an alert from @henjin256 regarding strange values for 2024, I went back to the Eurostat source which is supposed to be @ro_statistics.
I found the following values, quite dissimilar from 2020.
…/…
But in the end, excess mortality would have been less severe than announced and the situation would have stabilized in 2022 before starting to compensate for about half of the cumulative excess mortality in 2023 & 2024 (55k of 107k).
Sources:⏬
#Japon (suite) 1. La discussion encadrée⤵️ montre la grossière manipulation utilisée pour masquer les surmortalités 2023 et 2024.
Le même site propose aussi des chiffres par cause de décès.
Voici un récap, détaillé dans la suite
⏬ (1/13)
2. Voici le bilan des surmortalités, suivant mes calculs primitifs, pour les 5 causes présentées.
Une seule est absente de ce schéma, le Cancer, mais cela sera expliqué + bas.
3. Commençons par examiner la cause qui connaîtrait la + forte surmortalité aussi bien en nombre qu'en %.
Alors qu'elle n'est que la 5e cause.
En comparant avec une tendance qui marquait pourtant un triplement du nombre de décès entre 2010 et 2019.
1. Ceux qui se sont échinés à détecter des défauts dans les études comme celles de @raoult_didier, devraient se pencher sur ce site japonais officiel qui proclame l'absence de la moindre surmortalité pour 2023 & 2024, en se basant sur les décès observés suivants :
⏬ (1/9)
@raoult_didier 2. Et effectivement, quand vous regardez le résultat de leurs calculs depuis mars 2023, vous constatez que la plupart des barres🟦, montrant les décès observés, restent bien en dessous de la ligne tiretée, montrant les décès "attendus". exdeaths-japan.org/en/graph/weekl…
@raoult_didier 3. Comment est-ce possible ?
Ajoutons leur "décès attendus" au 1er graphe, avec des 🔴
Wouah, ça, c'est un décollage ! 🚀
1. To all people who have struggled to detect tiny flaws in studies like these of @raoult_didier, you should be quite interested in this official Japanese site which proclaims the absence of any excess mortality for 2023 & 2024, based on the following observed deaths.
⏬ (1/9)
@raoult_didier 2. Clearly, when you look at the result of their calculations since March 2023, you see that most of the blue bars, showing observed deaths, remain well below the dashed line, showing the "expected" deaths. exdeaths-japan.org/en/graph/weekl…
@raoult_didier 3. How is it possible?
Let's add their calculated "expected deaths" to 1st graph with🔴
Wow, that's a takeoff! 🚀