This is how it works.
Your hospital signs you up to an overseas EMR (health record) corporation.
They get your health data.
You get zip.
That data is used to generate artificial study data that promotes a drug, and Pharma makes $billions.
Here's an example. @addenbrookes hospital - one of the biggest hospitals in the country and a massive #BigPharma advocate...
Gives your health data to @epic.
What, you didn't know?
It's written in the T&C. Right at the bottom of a 4,400 word disclaimer.
Can't you see it?
Now comes the smart part.
Usually @NEJM or @thelancet are involved.
A noob medic comes along with a first author paper from a massive collaboration of people who don't know each other.
There are 14 data sources from different countries.
>900,000 patients.
Data amassed over 20 years up to the same year of the publication (therefore limited time for analysis).
Cleaning, matching, imputing this data would take 2 years+.
@chrismartenson
Yet we are expected to believe that an orthopaedic registrar with no prior publication record did this in a couple of months.
This is how we worked out that #surgisphere (#lancetgate) was fake.
Both @thelancet and @NEJM were involved, because they are simp journals for #BigPharma.
The study size prohibited any valid analysis in the time they proposed, it was impossible.
Which means these studies are either synthetic (created by modelling prior data sets gleaned by skimming your health data) or ghost written (written by Pharma employees with AI help).
In this case both of these things are likely to be true...
But @jennifercelane went along with it anyway. I have no idea what her contribution was but it looks like she was the "medic" front for a paper ghost written and produced by Pharma and @IQVIA_global who are the vaccine industry's data curators (or creators).
And here's the clincher.
This should have been a red flag to Jenny and @prieto_alhambra who was the supervising author.
You see, it's a simple fact that azithromycin isn't a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. Nor a long term treatment for anything in common use.
So it's just not possible that a third of the cohort taking hydroxychloroquine were also taking azithromycin long term.
Find a rheumatologist and ask them how many patients on HCQ they also treat with azithromycin.
Long-term azithromycin use is rare - bronchiectasis and other unusual indications. If it's used long term (I've never seen someone on it) it would be low dose, not the doses suggested in this paper.
So the probability that one-third of a cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients were also on long term azithromycin, when that is less than 1:10,000 people?
Zero.
I'm calling this paper fake until the data is available to public inspection...
"Patient level data not available".
So this paper must be assumed to be the 3rd in the #surgisphere #lancetgate scandal.
The 4th would have to be @bengoldacre's @OPENSAFELY paper in the @TheLancetRheum that is also not available to inspection.
And all these papers (including the original #surgisphere papers) appear to have been ghost written, because it's not possible for the lead authors to do what they did in the time available.
And the real people that provided the health data have no idea that their data is being used to push a false Pharma narrative that is endangering them, and making billions for the pharma companies who then pump a few quid back into the institutions.
Bargain Basement Bribery
👆👆👆this is #EMRgate.
But this 👇👇👇 is just one thread of the back-story.
Correction and apologies - @epic is not the twitter account of EPIC health care.... this was a typo.
Please feel free to remove your tag from the conversation as twitter doesn't let us edit or remove users from tweets
@chrismartenson @FeeRedfern BINGO and BOOM 💥💥💥
Here's your ghost writer.
Patrick Ryan of @OHDSI and @JanssenGlobal
The lead author should be the corresponding author.
If the corresponding author is not the lead author, it's because they don't want you asking questions of the lead author.
This is also strange.
The Quentin registry study shows a big jump in vaccination rate by age group but the Bernard study doesn't show the same.
This is more like what a synthetic data set might show based on assumed characteristics of the underlying data.
There are possible explanations for all of these anomalies, but this is the problem with secret registry data:
It's not credible when it conveniently matches a narrative and nobody is allowed to see it.
I'm going to explain why this chart is so important and why @jsm2334 is being disingenuous by ignoring it - whilst making points that undermine the "real world vaccine data" industry.
It's a Kaplan-Meier curve and it obliterates Jeffrey's argument.
Just to go over it... the lines show what proportion of subjects (children) ended up without chronic disease up to 10 years after being studied.
It's called a survival analysis because it's used for cancer survival.
If the red line was a cancer drug it would be a blockbuster
It shows that by the end of the 10 year follow-up, of those that they could still follow up (who stayed in the study) 57% (100-43%) of vaccinated kids had chronic disease (e.g. asthma) and 17% (100-83%) of unvaccinated kids did.
Janet Diaz was the person that led the #MAGICApp guideline committees that stopped your grandma getting antibiotics for her post-viral pneumonia, leading to her death.
But she did this with the help of @pervandvik who deleted his account
Diaz here tells you that COVID kills you by an overreacting immune response, but that was never true.
She was an intensivist recruited by the WHO in 2018.
None of this was true, but it sold a LOT of drugs and killed a LOT of people
Which US govt organisation blew a hole in the ozone layer in 1958 by sending atomic bombs to the troposphere over the Antarctic in operation Argus - then blaming the resulting destruction of ozone on CFC's?
It wasn't just Pfizer that hid the fact that the mRNA-LNP complex went to the ovaries (where it could not possibly provide its declared function in the lung).
The AMH drop (ovarian reserve) after vaccination was later shown by the Manniche paper after being denied by the Kate Clancy and Viki Males of the world.
But this time the Arnold foundation's @RetractionWatch have not only revealed with their "exclusive" that they were directly involved in trying to get this important paper retracted...