Series of illuminating talks (if I do say so myself) from last week's conference on Propaganda and Mental Health. Here is mine on Censorship & Suppression of COVID-19 Heterodoxy.
@NAffects, who has been working with @mtaibbi and Racket News, gives the lowdown on the #TwitterFiles and their discovery of a massive and growing anti-disinformation industry consisting of NGO, government, academic and military players.
@thackerpd Talks about the collusion he and others have uncovered between the government and big Tech in censoring free speech. odysee.com/@MartaGB:2/Pau…
@rubberdoll82 provided additional insights into propaganda in general and in the COVID-19 era, including a discussion of his concept of 'self-haunting.' odysee.com/@MartaGB:2/col…
Jordi Pigem, a public intellectual from Catalonia, shared his insights on Making Sense of Health and Life in an Era of Post-Truth and Cognitive Collapse. odysee.com/@MartaGB:2/Jor…
And @MichaelSanger gave an overview of his investigations into how the Chinese government is responsible for the heavy-handed covid policies. odysee.com/@MartaGB:2/Mic…
There were many other talks focused on mental health but they were all in Portuguese. They seemed fascinating.
Many many thanks to @MartaBranco86 for inviting us and putting this together!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Was the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine clinical trial a bait-and-switch?
There were >44,000 people in the trial, but only ~250 of them were given doses made with a new manufacturing method ('process 2') that was used to make enough doses to sell around the world.
To our knowledge, the safety and efficacy comparison they planned to do with those 250 subjects has never been published and has not been released in the FOIA'd documents that Pfizer submitted to the FDA. Was the comparison ever done? Where are the results?
@RetsefL and I explore the importance of this comparison and the potential impact of variability in the the production process of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines on efficacy and safety in a newly published rapid response in the @bmj_latest. bmj.com/content/378/bm…
Today in the waiting room at a clinic of Israel's largest HMO, I see out of the corner of my eye I see "Pfizer" written on one of the screens they have dotting the walls. What's this all about? 🧵
(See alt text for translation.)
Had to wait for the selfless and generous "public service announcement" paid for by Pfizer to play again.
It starts out with this startling warning: "Atrial fibrillation increases the risk of stroke by 5 times."
"Do you have high blood pressure? With atrial fibrillation?"
Fishy Findings from the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID Vaccine Clinical Trial Data
A🧵summarizing my collaborative investigation with @canceledmouse
(See tweets at end of thread for links to podcast discussion & blog post with more info & details.)
1/ Many trial subjects had positive PCR tests but were not counted as COVID cases for efficacy calculations.
We found that vaccinated subjects with positive PCR tests were *LESS* likely to be counted as a COVID case compared to the placebo group, at every step of the way:
2/ Why?
To be counted as a COVID case required you be symptomatic & have a positive PCR test result from Pfizer's *CENTRAL* lab.
But vaccinated subjects with a positive *LOCAL* test result were more likely to have a negative or missing central test result.
Interesting! The very first study that used the self-controlled case series (SCCS) method to study vaccine safety (from 1995) found that MMR vaccination greatly increased rate of aseptic meningitis (brain inflammation) by 10-14x among children 12-24 months old.
The SCCS method is widely used in vaccine safety studies, including by the CDC and @FLSurgeonGen.
The problem is that nowadays researchers usually only compare risk of adverse events soon after jab (like 1-21 days) vs. later risk post-jab (like 22-42 days).
It doesn't take a genius to realize that if vaccination increases the risk of an adverse event beyond 21 days, then this method is not likely to find anything.
It makes sense to compare to pre vs. post jab periods. The SCCS method allows this. But it's rarely done anymore.
Newly FOIA'd reports reveal the bureaucracy of record keeping & the devastation caused by the COVID-19 vaccines.
The contractor hired to process 1,000 VAERS reports/day overwhelmed by flood of reports in first month of the vaccination campaign.🧵
The contractor is the IT unit of defense industry giant General Dynamics. Hired to process 7,000 reports/week, they were quickly overwhelmed by the the "record setting" number of reports flooding in by January, 2021.
They renegotiated the contract and hired an additional 290 staffers to process a minimum of 25,000 new reports/week plus make their way through almost 95,000 backlogged reports that had piled up by March 1st.